Where an owner of real estate sets machinery in motion to induce a sale of real estate through the agency of a broker, and a sale results through the broker's intervention, it is not material that the negotiations were concluded directly with the owner; in such case the broker is entitled to his commissions. Cain v. Werner, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 438.

If, after negotiations between the owner of real estate and a prospective purchaser have been broken off, the owner, after promising an agent that he will pay him commissions if he will get such prospective purchaser to buy the property, makes a sale to such purchaser, after efforts of the agent had had the effect of bringing the parties to an understanding, such agent may recover the agreed commissions. O'Connor v. Kennedy, 200 I11. App. 426.

Under bare contract to pay a commission "for trading my 615 acres farm at H. for garage at H.," the agent is entitled to commission on such 615 acres, although owner gave other land in addition, and made various arrangements as to incumbrances without consulting the agent. Herr v. McGonnell, 119 N. E. 496, - Ind. App. - .

Plaintiffs were not the procuring cause of the trade of defendant's property, where defendant refused to make it without knowing the name of the owner of the other property when it was first proposed by plaintiff, and several months later effected a trade through his answer to an advertisement by the owner of the property, with which plaintiffs had nothing to do. Roegmer v. Frey, 209 I11. App. 303.

Broker having contract to sell land at stipulated price can not recover commissions on sale made by seller on the ground of being the procuring cause of such sale, unless it affirmatively appears that sale was made on the terms on which plaintiff was authorized to procure a purchaser. Sanden & Huss v. Ausenhus, 168 N. W. 801, - Iowa Sup. - .

That brokers have introduced a prospective purchaser to look at certain land, but has failed to make a sale before the land is withdrawn from the market, does not establish connection with a subsequent purchase of such land by the same purchaser direct from the owner, so as to create a liability for commissions where, during the intervening time, the purchaser has changed his mind. Saunders v. Hackcley & Hume Co., 208 S. W. 67, - Mo. Sup. - .

Where purchasers had been trying to buy property for a period of eleven years, and during such period had been negotiating with owners, broker was not procuring or efficient cause of sale, though he had the property listed and had sent purchasers letters describing it, among other properties for sale, without calling particular attention to it. Both v. Thomson, 180 P. 656, - Cal. Sup. - .

Where a broker employed to sell property found a prospective purchaser, but failed to sell, and such purchaser thereafter secretly arranged with a third party to purchase the property directly from the owner, and neither the broker nor the owner knew of such secret arrangement, the broker was not the procuring cause of the sale. Ritch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where sale was effected upon terms entirely different from the offer made by plaintiff for the purchaser he interested, and through the disassociated efforts of an independent broker, plaintiff could not recover commissions, he not being the procuring cause of the contract. Morgan v. Congregation Agudath Achim of Harlem, 176 N. Y. Sup. 707.

It is not the law that a real estate broker can not recover a commission on sale of a farm, though he was the inducing cause thereof, if the owner did not know when he sold that the broker had been the main efficient cause of inducing the purchaser to buy. Thomas v. Wychoff, 174 N. W. 26, - Iowa Sup. - .

If a realty broker told the purchaser of a farm "he would not want the land, that there was no use to go to see it, and that it was rough," etc., but the purchaser, nevertheless, bought through the efforts of some one other than plaintiff, plaintiff was not entitled to a commission. Id.

A broker who did not have the exclusive sale of property can not recover commissions without showing that his services were the effective cause of bringing about the sale, it being insufficient that he procured the one and communicated to the owner who purchased the property. Rosenfield v. Wall, 109 A. 409, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where two or more brokers, without exclusive authority to sell, each playing some part in bringing about a sale, each is not entitled to a commission, or to a share of the commission, but some one of them is entitled to the whole commission; i. e., he who deserves to be regarded as the procuring cause of the sale by reason of his efforts having been the efficient proximate cause of its accomplishment, or the predominating efficient cause. Murphy v. Linshy, 109 A. 412, - Conn. Sup. -; Rosenfield v. Wall, 109 A. 409, - Conn. Sup. - .

Defendant listed his property with plaintiff broker for sale, but gave no exclusive agency, and while the broker discovered one who ultimately purchased the property, he was unable to procure from the purchaser an offer which the owner would accept. Held, that where the owner accepted a larger offer made through a broker whom the purchaser engaged, plaintiff could not recover commission, not having been the efficient cause of the sale. Rosen field v. Wall, 109 A. 409, - Conn. Sup. - .

The mere fact that a realty broker, without an exclusive agency to sell, first approached the ultimate buyer through the tetter's agents, and thus brought him into the field as a possible purchaser, a sale to him on different terms than first authorized, but satisfactory to the owner, if in fact consummated, is not decisive of the broker's right to a commission, though deserving of consideration in passing on claim. Murphy v. Linsky, 109 A. 412, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where broker, who had been employed by owner to find a purchaser upon terms acceptable to her, introduced purchaser to owner, and where the contract thereupon entered into was thereafter abrogated, and a new contract entered into upon different terms, and where broker's employment was continued after abrogation, and contract of agency was in full force at the time of making the new contract, owner was liable for commission, even though in entering into the new contract parties had negotiated directly, without the knowledge of the broker, the broker being the procuring cause. Harvey & Newins, Inc. v. Hermann, 181 N. Y. Sup. 42.

In a realty broker's action for commissions, as having brought about a sale to the ultimate buyer first approached by him, evidence held to sustain jury's finding that plaintiff was not the efficient procuring cause of sale, despite his claim that when he first approached the buyer the latter was ready, able and willing to buy on the terms ultimately concluded, and subsequently merely availed himself of opportunity to do so through another broker, owner having meanwhile decided to accept less price. Murphy v. Linsky, 109 A. 412, - Conn. Sup. - .

Broker, to be entitled to recover commissions, must have been the procuring cause of that for which he is employed, it being insufficient that his act was merely one of the links in a chain of causes. Low v. Paddock, 220 S. W. 969, - Mo. App. - .

Where the terms of a broker's contract authorizing him to sell a farm bound the owner for commissions if sale was made on the terms stated, or on such other price or terms as might thereafter be agreed to by the owner, the fact that the owner and a prospective buyer procured by the broker did not agree on terms at their first meeting, did not absolve the owner from payment of commission if a sale was subsequently made to the buyer on different terms, and the broker was its procuring cause, though the owner had previously revoked the broker's authority, the contract covering no specific time, such revocation having been in bad faith and to avoid payment of commission. Baskett v. Jones, 225 S. W. 158, - Ky. Ct. App. - .

Simply to show that a broker is the efficient cause of consummation of a sale does not show an agency to sell. Newell v. Lafe-rella, 225 S. W. 853, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

To make the procuring the "efficient and procuring cause" of a sale, so as to entitle him to his commission, it is essential that it result from his efforts, such as introducing the purchaser to the seller, advertising, giving the seller the name of the customer, or showing the purchaser over the premises. Gamer v. Davis, 225 S. W. 567, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where the owner placed his property in the hands of several brokers, giving none the exclusive right of sale, and several brokers called the purchaser's attention to the property, but only one stopped and pointed it out to him, at which time the purchaser was not interested in buying it, but subsequently the purchaser, at his request, was again shown the property by another real estate agent, and purchased the property; the first real estate agent was not, under such evidence, entitled to a commission, as he was not the efficient procuring cause of the sale. Moore v. Rich, 86 S. 772, - Miss. Sup. - .