Revised Statutes 1899, Sec. 3418, providing that no contract for the sale of lands made by an agent shall be binding on the principal unless the agent is authorized in writing to make such contract, Held, that where the employment of the broker was not evidenced by the written consent of the land owner, a written contract to sell the same by the broker with a purchaser was unenforceable against the land owner. Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 231, 96 S. W. 228; McMurran v. Duncan, 155 P. 306, 17 Ariz. 552; Fritz v. Mills, 150 P. 375, - Cal. Sup. -; Aldis v. Schleisher, 99 P. 526, 9 Cal. App. 372; Beaver v. Continental Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 116 P. 1105, 15 Cal. App. 190; Kleinenge

& Heilbron v. Liness, 120 P. 444, 17 Cal. App. 534; Pronix v. Sacramento Valley Loan Co., 126 P. 509, 10 Cal. App. 529; Sel vage v. Tolbert, 95 N. E 114, 175 Ind. 648, 33 L. E. A. 973, Ann. Cas. 1913 C, 724; Fullenwider v. Goben, 95 N. E. 1010, 176 Ind. 312; Price v. Walker, 88 N. E. 78, 43 Ind. App. 519; Wysong v. Sells, - N. E. 954, 44 Ind. App. 238; Keith v. Smith, 89 P. 473, 46 Wash. 131, 13 Ann. Cas. 975; Gushing v. Monarch Timber Co., 135 P. 660, 75 Wash. 678, Ann. Cas. 1914 C, 1239; Gerard-Fillio Co. v. McNair, 123 P. 162, 68 Wash. 321; Reitz v. Bryant, 127 P. 583, 71 Wash. 53; Parker v. Bruggemann, 130 P. 358, 72 Wash. 309; Engelson v. Port Crescent Shingle Co., 133 P. 1030, 74 Wash. 424; Rothwell v. Gibson, 98 S. W. 801, 121 Mo. App. 279; Finley v. Handley, 98 S. W. 803, 121 Mo. App. 358; Kennedy v. Merickel, 97 P. 81, 8 Cal. App. 378; Sanchez v. Yerba, 97 P. 205, 8 Cal. App. 490; In re Balfour v. Garrotte, I11 P. 615, 14 Cal. App. 261; Curran v. Hubbard, 114 P. 81, 14 Cal. App. 733, re. den., 114 P. 83, 14 Cal. App. 733; Naylor v. 'Adams, 115 P. 81, 15 Cal. App. 548; Carrington v. Smithers, 147 P. 225, 26 Cal. App. 460; Mooney v. Thompson, 147 P. 1178, 26 Cal. App. 634; Phillips v. Jones, 80 N. E. 555, 39 Ind. App. 626; Doney v. Laughlin, 94 N. E. 1027, 50 Ind. App. 38; Olcott v. McClure, 98 N. E. 82, 50 Ind. App. 79; Morton v. Gaffield, 98 N. E. 100, 51 Ind. App. 28; Lustig v. Malrick, 82 A. 867, 82 N. J. Law, 498; Mendles v. Danish, 65 A. 888, 74 N. J. Law, 333; Foote v. Bobbins, 97 P. 103, 50 Wash. '277; Crouch v. Forbes, 116 P. 14, 63 Wash. 564; Goodrich V. Robers, 134 P. 947, 75 Wash. 212; Thompson v. English, 135 P. 664, 76 Wash. 23; Hutchens Co. v. Nichols, 142 P. 674, 81 Wash. 257; Salin v. Roy, 142 P. 679, 81 Wash. 261; Mason v. Miller, 179 I11. App. 347; Slocum v. Smith, 161 N. W. 830, - Mich. Sup. -; Ryaw v. Walker, 109 P. 417, - Cal. App. -; Elmore v. Brunniman, 123 1ST. E. 248, - Ind. App. -; Lewis v. Papejoy, 123 N. E. 646, - Ind. App. -; Rugh v. Soleim, 180 'P. 930, - Or. Sup. -; Weatherhead v. Cooney, 180 P. 760, - Idaho Sup. -; Murphy v. Willis, 219 S. W. 776, - Ark Sup. -; Eaton v. Yount, 191 P. 1009, - Cal. App. - See also Sec. 433.