Plaintiff sued for commissions for purchasing property for defendants, on the theory that with defendant's knowledge he was to receive commissions from both defendants and the vendor; plaintiff, however, during the negotiations, had written a letter to defendants stating that if they were under the belief that he expected to receive commissions from both sides, they were mistaken; that if he received a commission from the other side, he would charge defendants only for legal services; on receipt of this letter defendants forwarded the purchase price. Plaintiff testified that the letter was written at the instance of the agent of defendants, who promised him other business from the company sufficient to repay him for the release of commissions. Held, that as defendants' agent could not have authority to deceive defendants, and as the jury might have found that defendants acted on the strength of the letter, it was error to instruct for plaintiff; that if an agent acts for both he may receive compensation from both, and that if the letter releasing commissions was written in consideration of further business, which they refused to give plaintiff, he was entitled to recover. Lindt v. Schlitz Brewing Co., 113 Iowa 200, 84 N. W. 1059. See also Sec. 558.