DOTSON v. MILLIKEN. 209 U. 8. Opinion of the Court. finding to have been made in fact. It was recognized that what the railroads would do was decisive, and it was to be expected that t?-ties thinking of a purchase would require an assurance from them, or something more definite than what the defendant had said. The plaintiff was to go to work at once, and the jury well might find that he was not understood to take the risk of what the railroads might do. The question is between the broker and seller, not between the purchaser and seller. The seller was willing and meant that the broker should accept his confidence as well founded, although he must have known that the purchaser would or might ask more. The correspondence indicates very strongly that Milliken really relied upon Dot- son's ststement that an agreement had been made. So, again, it might be found that Dotson was s4lling to take his chances as to the specification of the ten thousand acres in tbe-larger tract at the defendant's command. The option that satisfied him and his purchasers was enough, if accepted, to entitle the plaintiff to his pay. The jury was warranted in finding that the plaintiff was employed at the rate named to make a bargain for land to bc identified later and subject to requirement of the .purchaser that the railroads or one of them would agree to build a road into the land. The ruling requested for the plaintiff was as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defen?lant, on or about the 30th day of April, 1902, represented to the plaintiff that he, the defendant, was desirous of securing a purchaser for either the whole or any considerable quantity of the Harlan County coal lands at the price of $20.00 per acre, that he had obtained from the Southern Railway Company its consent or agreement to construct a branch railroad into the said coal lands, and that he would pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2.50 for each and every acre for which he should find a purcltaser at and for the price of $20.00 per acre, and that shortly thereafter, namely, on or about the 8th day of May, 1902, he further represented to the plaintiff that the Southern Railway Company was willing to build the said railroad into
�
