In an action by vendees against the agents who made the sale to recover that part of the price retained by them, without plaintiff's knowledge, the issue being whether defendants were the agents of plaintiffs or of the vendor, proof of the value of the property sold is competent to explain the motive of the parties to the contract, and evidence that the action was not begun until after the defendants had dissolved partnership and become their business rival is also competent; but evidence as to the motives of the vendor and defendants' influence over him, is irrelevant. Duryea v. Vosburgh, 1 N. Y. S. 833.