Bray v. Chandler, 18 C. B. 717, 86 E. C. L. 718; Murray v. Curry, 7 C. & P. 584, 32 E. C. L. 771; Colonial Trust Co. v. Pac. Packing & Nav. Co., 158 Fed. 277, 85 C. C. A. 539. Compare Sec. 581.

If a broker is the procuring cause of the sale, the owner can not sell at a lower price, and thereby escape liability for commissions. Hubachek v. Hazzard, 83 Minn. 437, 86 N. "W. 426; Frayner v. Morse, 55 Neb. 595, 75 N. W. 1103. If the broker be the instrument through whom a sale has been effected, no sort of artifice, deceit or fraud will deprive him of his commission. Corder v. O'Neill, 176 Mo. 401, 75 S. W. 764, 774.

The fact that before a sale the broker did not inform the owner that the prospective purchaser was his customer is not altogether controlling. Metcalfe v. Gordon, 83 N. Y. S. 808, 86 App. Div. 368. Where a broker is employed to find a purchaser at a price satisfactory to his principal, as a condition to demand commissions he must be the procuring cause of the sale. Beads v. Hank, 147 Mich. 42, 110 N. W. 130, 13 D. L. N. 952. A broker who merely called the attention of a church officer to a lot he had for sale, telling him the price, is not the efficient and procuring cause of the sale, where the church refused to purchase through him, and bought the property through another agent. Witherbee v. Walker, 42 Colo. 1, 93 P. 1118.

Plaintiff, a real estate broker, with authority to sell land, visited defendant with a purchaser, and thereafter continued negotiations which were never expressly terminated. Without any intervening agency the purchaser decided to buy, but made an arrangement with another real estate broker whereby such broker agreed to divide his commissions with the purchaser, and the latter broker, with full knowledge of plaintiff's negotiations, solicited and received authority to sell the land, the owner not knowing of plaintiff's negotiations with the purchaser. Held, that, as between the brokers, plaintiff's efforts were the procuring cause of the sale, and he was entitled to the commissions. Lewis v. McDonald, 83 Neb. 694, 120 N. W. 207. See also Sec. 444.

If a broker is the procuring cause of a sale of realty, it is immaterial to his right to commission that he did not personally conduct negotiations, was not present when the bargain was closed, or that the principal at the time did not know that the purchaser was found by the broker. Gilbert v. McCullough, 125 N. W. 175, 146 Iowa, 353; McKinney v. Thedford, 166 S. W. 443.

The broker must be the direct and proximate cause, and not an indirect, incidental or remote cause of bringing a customer to his principal. Lord v. U. S. Trans. Co., 128 N. Y. Sup. 451, 143 App. Div. 437.

The broker is entitled to the commission who brought the parties together, and not the other, who was employed by the purchaser and closed the sale. Central Turnverein of Pittsburgh v. Fitzpatrick, 86 A. 487, 238 Pa. 532.

Broker, to be the procuring cause of a sale, must first call the purchaser's attention to the property and start negotiations which culminate in a sale. Wheeler v. Hunt, 133 P. 52, 37 Okl. 523; Langford v. Issenbuth, 134 N. W. 889, 28 S. D. 451.

Where negotiations resulting in a sale of land were not carried on by the agent, but by the owner, the agent must show that he was the efficient cause of the negotiations resulting in a sale before he will be entitled to a commission. Cooper v. Upton, 64 S. E. 523, 60 W. Va. 648, 65 W. Ya. 401.

To entitle him to commissions, a broker need not personally conduct the negotiations leading to the sale, or be present when it is completed, nor need the principal know, at the time, that the purchaser was found by the broker, it only being essential that the broker's efforts be the producing cause of the sale. Justy v. Erro, 117 P. 575, 16 Cal. App. 519; Pridmore v. Wilson, 159 I11. App. 343; Sidebothom v. Spengler, 133 S. W. 101, 154 Mo. App. 11.

Where a sale is actually made through the owner closing the deal with the customer of the broker, the broker need not, to recover, show that the sale was completed within the time fixed in the contract of employment, or in an option on the property, provided the broker initiated the transaction of purchase within the prescribed time, and was the procuring cause. Cole v. Crump, 156 S. W. 769, 174 Mo. App. 215.

Under the ordinary realty broker's contract, one whose services were the predominating efficient cause of the sale is entitled to the commission, although others may have contributed to its consummation. Myers v. Batcheller, 163 N. Y. Sup. 688, 177 App. Div. 47.

Where the defendant listed her property for sale with the plaintiffs, who advertised it, and later one of them showed it to the purchaser, who had been referred to them by another real estate agent to whom the purchaser had applied for information as to places for rent, suggesting that the purchaser buy the place, and gave him the price, and notified the defendant that the property had been submitted to the purchaser, and the latter returned to the office of the other agent, where the sale was negotiated; held, that the plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale and entitled to the commission. Engels v. Manning, 202 I11. App. 209.

Where the plaintiff, after submitting to the defendant a proposition for trading the defendant's real estate for certain other real estate, which the defendant rejected, and informed plaintiff he wanted cash for his property, and took no further action in the matter; and about ten months later a trade of such real estate was tendered through another agent, who effected such trade by first procuring a purchaser for the real estate the defendant took in trade. Held, that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the trade, notwithstanding he first proposed it. Baldino v. Kadison, 204 I11. App. 197.

Plaintiff, who showed purchaser a number of farms, including defendant's farm, after he had arranged to visit such farms with another broker from whom he subsequently purchased; held, not effective agent in bringing about the sale. Bliss v. Reed,, 102 A. 610, - R. I. - .