The issue was, whether one executing a contract on behalf of a landowner had authority so to do, and it was shown that 330 he was authorized by one who was engaged in renting property and collecting rents for the landowner. Held, that the relations between the rent agent and the owner were not sufficient to warrant an inference of authority to empower the person executing the contract. Topliff v. Shadwell, 64 Kan. 884, 67 P. 545; Hunn v. Ashton, 121 Iowa, 265, 96 N. W. 745. See also Sec. 392 and reference under Sec. 307.