Plaintiff, after negotiating for sale to S. of timber land, on which defendant had an option, in which S.'s only offer was $90,000 for such timber and that of certain other adjoining tracts, which offer defendant rejected, had a telephone talk with defendant, in which he said that he thought S. would give $90,000 for the timber under option, and defendant told him to sell if S. would do so. Plaintiff agreed to see S., and report to defendant by telephone. Later in the day plaintiff telegraphed defendant: "S. will give $90,000 for timber, including the additional tracts * * * can't raise him a penny." Defendant then telegraphed plaintiff: "We accept S.'s offer; if he declines to stand up, we can do no more business with him." Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury that defendant's telegram was in reply to plaintiff's telegram, and not to the telephone offer, and that therefore there was a meeting of minds on the contract entitling plaintiff to commissions. Watson v. Paschall, 83 S. C. 366, 65 S. E. 337. See also Sec. 33. Under a contract by which broker was employed to procure a third party to undertake the sale of a large tract of land to numerous purchasers; held, there could be no recovery, where no contract with a third party was ever made, even if their minds did meet on the terms of a contract. Jameson v. U. S. Farm Loan Co., 210 F. 885, 127 C. C. A. 495, den. re., 206 F. 889, 124 C. C. A. 549.