In an action by a broker for commission for procuring purchaser; held, that the petition, though alleging that defendants, vendors, through the plaintiff, executed the contract of sale, must be deemed to have asserted that the contract of sale was executed pursuant to the enlistment contract; hence, where evidence showed that terms of sale were contrary to the enlistment contract, and the broker introduced oral statements authorizing a sale on different terms, it was error to refuse to allow the vendor to offer evidence in contradiction thereof, on the theory that, since he did not deny knowing the fact of broker's authority to execute a contract he should not, under Rev. Stat. 1911, art. 1906, sec. 3710, on trial offer proof in denial. Peeples v. Griffith, 214 S. W. 561, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where defendant claimed that, when informed of plaintiffs offer, he told plaintiff that the property had been sold through other brokers, and that contract would be secured on the following day, it was error to exclude in evidence a contract of sale, apparently executed on the following day, pursuant to alleged prior acceptance of offer. Duff & Conger v. Makley, 175 N. Y. Sup. 777.