Since the opinion in this case was filed, and after it was reported, (
ante, 646,) the following paragraph has been added to it by the court, and should be inserted at line 18 on page 648, just before the paragraph beginning, "But a further defense," etc.:
"The same doctrine has been recognized in England. In Hamer v. Sharp, L. E. 19 Eq. 108, Vice-Chancellor HALL said it was his opinion that, when instructions were given to an agent to find a purchaser of landed property, he, not being instructed as to the conditions to be inserted in the contract as to title, was not authorized to sign a written contract on the part of the vendor. In the case under consideration, it is proper to remark that no instructions of any kind were given to the agent as to what should be inserted in the written contract. Indeed, so far as appears, a written contract was not thought of by either principal or agent. They were looking for a purchaser,and until he was found—until they had some one to make a written contract with—they were not likely to give any attention to the question as to what a written contract should contain, nor whether the vendor should sign it in person or by an agent. In all probability, neither ever gave a thought to the question as to who should sign a written contract, if one was made."