Wilson

This appeal is from the judgment rendered at the second trial of the action. At the- first trial the court granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit. The judgment was reversed on appeal. ( 46 Cal. App. 738 [ 189 Pac. 1040 ].) In the opinion of the appellate court the issues and the law applicable thereto are stated. Appel lant’s principal contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and it is sufficient herein to examine the evidence produced at the second trial..

Plaintiff testified that H. C. Farnum purchased the lands in controversy for plaintiff in January, 1914; that plaintiff did not view the lands or make any investigation thereof but relied on Farnum’s representations ; that he did not know prior to the purchase that Farnum was the agent of defendant to sell the lands. He further, testified: “At the time the applications were signed in my behalf for the purchase of these properties, there had been a conversation between me and Mr. Farnum as to my giving him an interest in the profits if the land was sold. When I made up my mind to purchase the property I fixed up that memorandum for Mr. Farnum, which is plaintiff’s exhibit No. 5, bearing date…