In a suit for specific performance of a contract by C. as agent of defendant to convey certain lots, it appeared that the lots were situate in D., where such agent resided; that on March 30, 1889, defendant wrote the agent: "I will be in D. last of April or first of May, wish you would have a purchaser; think I ought to get $17,000, as there is quite a boom in D. in real estate;" that on April 20th the agent telegraphed defendant: "Lots sold for $16,000 cash, mail you deed for signing to-day;" to which defendant replied: "Won't sell for less than $17,000; be there May 1st;" on May 3d, the date of her arrival in D., the agent telegraphed her: "Sold property for $17,000 * * * 27th of April;" but she did not receive the telegram until she had reached D. and repudiated the contract; held that the agent had no authority to sell the property. Sullivan v. Leer, 29 P. 817, 2 Colo. App. 141; Curatola v. Venafrana Ben. Soc., etc., 70 Pa. Super. Ct. 542; Lee v. Lloyd, 181 N. Y. Sup. 295.