Where plaintiff seeks to recover $1,000 for making a sale, on the ground that there was a special contract therefor, there is no error in charging that if defendant made the promise, the verdict should be for plaintiff, there being no request for an instruction on the want of consideration, and defendant's testimony that, at the time of the sale, and before as well as afterwards plaintiff was in his employ, and whatever services he rendered, including any he may have rendered in connection with the sale, were within the scope of his said employment, and any such special contract was without consideration, being too vague and uncertain to warrant a finding that the special services were within the scope of any contract between them other than that sued on. Keyset v. Beilly, 191 Pa. St. 271, 43 A. 317, 44 Weekly N. C. 240.