¶1 The contract of agency is not seriously questioned, though it is contended that the power of agency, being revocable as it was not coupled with an interest, was revoked before the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, able and willing to take the property, and who did later purchase it direct from the owner, defendant herein. This was purely a question of fact which the jury has determined in favor of the plaintiff. The law of the case is settled in Auction Co. v. Brittain, 182 N. C., 676, 110 S. E., 82; House v. Abell, ibid., 619, 109 S. E., 877; Aycock v. Bogue, ibid., 105, 108 S. E., 434.
¶2 No error.