Failure of the broker to disclose to the vendor that the purchaser was acting as agent for an undisclosed principal does not affect the broker's right to commission, the purchaser being financially able to carry out his contract, so that the vendors are not injured. Id.

That a broker, after procuring a tenant and causing him to furnish a bond to secure the rent, advanced money to the tenant, either before or after the execution of the lease, in order that the tenant might procure fixtures used in the leased premises, does not show bad faith on the part of the broker, or tend to establish an interest inconsistent with his duty to his principal, the broker having, in fact, no interest in the lease. Rutz v. Obear, 115 P. 67, 15 Cal. App. 435.

There was no conflict of interest and duty where vendor's broker, having induced his father to purchase, merely examined the contract and title for his father to see that they conformed to the agreement, and he ought to recover the commission. Owners' Realty Co. of Baltimore City v. Cook, 90 A. 602, 123 Md. 1.

Under Civil Code, sec. 1461, providing that everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except compensation, belongs to the employer, whether acquired lawfully-or unlawfully, an agent employed to effect a purchase of land, at the owner's lowest price, for a commission of a specified sum per acre, may not act, without notice to the principal, in the employment of the owner and receive compensation therefor, and such Commission can not be retained, but the principal may sue therefor. McGinty v. Reynolds, 133 N. W. 281, 28 S. D. 248.

Where an agent who effects an exchange of land for his principal has a secret agreement with the other party for commissions, and actively urges his principal to make the trade, the latter is not liable for brokerage. Erland v. Gibbons, 163 N. Y. Sup. 582, 176 App. Div. 552, re. judg. 159 N. Y. Sup. 875.

Real estate firm employed to sell land can not legally sell it to a member of such firm without first disclosing to their principal that purchaser is such member. Baird v. Conover, 168 P. 797, - Okl. Sup. - .

One contracting to sell land for another may act for purchaser in any way not inconsistent with duty to principal. Smith v. Sharp R. E. Co., 77 S. 40, 200 Ala. 666.

When agent is employed to find a purchaser for land, it is his duty to disclose the name of the purchaser to his employer, but where agent is commissioned to sell on stated terms, and makes written agreement of sale, which is binding on purchaser, duty to disclose and duty to execute a deed are concurrent. Smith v. Sharp Real Estate Co., 77 S. 40, 200 Ala. 666.

An agreement by the owner to deliver a deed to purchaser "under the security" is acceptance of the purchaser, although his identity is not disclosed, but the initiative is on such buyer to tender a required payment and security before the seller can be required to execute a deed. Id.

Under agency agreement whereby seller of land agrees to deliver deed "to the purchaser," it is necessary that the name of the buyer be disclosed within the time in which deed is to be made. Id.

A firm of real estate brokers are liable to a client for damages from their breach of trust in effecting, while secretly representing the other party, an exchange of valuable property of their client for the equity, known by them to be of little value to the other party, in other property. Bradley v. Davidson, 47 App. D. C. 266.

A real estate broker having been employed to effect a real estate exchange is bound to act for his principal alone, using his utmost good faith in principal's behalf. Lister v. Sakwinski, 172 N. W. 397, - Mich Sup. - .

A real estate broker is required to act with the utmost good faith and loyalty for the furtherance and advancement of the interests of his principal. Prouty v. Blanchard, 106 A. 831, - Vt. Sup. - .

Though an agent to sell at a fixed price does his duty and keeps principal fully informed, and if he knows that more advantageous terms can be obtained, he is under obligation to communicate the facts with reference thereto to his principal, and is liable for failure so to do. Pederson v. Johnson, 172 N. W. 723, - Wis. Sup. - .

Vendor having agreed to pay broker commissions pro rata upon payment of purchase price is required to act in good faith, and do nothing to prevent, discourage or embarrass the complete purchase of the property, and do everything possible to aid in securing the purchase price. Ritzlaff v. Trainor-Desmond Co., 183 P. 269, - Cal. App. - .

A broker negotiating for both sides owes to each the same good faith that he would have owed to either had he acted for him alone. James E. Carlson, Inc., v. Babler, 174 N. W. 824,

- Minn. Sup. - .

Where a real estate agent was engaged by a corporation to procure for it a parcel of land on which it desired to erect a factory, and a fiduciary relation existed between the corporation and the agent, the agent can not make any secret profit out of the transaction, and if he does so, he must account therefor to his principal, the corporation. H. J. Jaeger Co. v. Hannan, 108 A. 1,

- N. J. Eq. - .

A broker employed to negotiate a sale and receive for his services the usual commissions is under the duty of making the best possible bargain for his principal, and is not permitted to become personally interested in the sale except to the extent of his commissions. Chester v. Campbell, 109 A. 961, - N. J. Ct. of Err. and App. - .

It is the duty of a real estate broker to disclose to his principal the facts as to the value of the principal's property, and it is a breach of duty for the broker to conceal from his principal the fact that oil had been struck on adjacent premises which would greatly increase the value of the principal's property. Brown v. Musgrave, 222 S. W. 606, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Real estate agents, when becoming agents for sale, are under duty to inform their principal of their being financially interested on the side of the proposed purchaser. Newell-Murdoch Realty Co. v. Wichham, 190 P. 359, - Cal. Sup. - .

Interest of brokers as stockholders in a proposed purchaser is such an interest as to require them to inform their principal, the vendor, thereof. Id.

If broker's agency is terminated on the eve of its successful culmination, time of revocation is a strong indication of bad faith on the part of the owner, and unless the inference is rebutted by evidence the owner will be held liable for commissions. Hennegan v. Wiley, 178 N. W. 294, - S. D. Sup. - .

Agents employed by a landowner to sell or exchange properties for an agreed commission owe their principal the utmost good faith during the agency, and if they violate their duty by concealing information as to the price of property, and by misrepresentation and fraud obtain a profit for themselves in excess of the agreed commission, they forfeit their right to it, and become liable for damages to the principal for their bad faith. Schlesener v. Mott, 190 P. 745, - Kan. Sup. - .