An instruction, at defendant's request, in an action to determine which of two real estate brokers was entitled to the commissions for selling land, that where real estate was listed for sale with several real estate agents acting independently, the one who succeeded in bringing about a contract between the seller and the purchaser was the one who earned the commissions, regardless of the fact that some other real estate men may have introduced the purchaser to the seller, if error, as excluding the theory that the broker who is the procuring cause of the sale is entitled to the commission, did not constitute a reversible error, where instructions were given in plaintiff's behalf, that if the purchaser of the land had it first brought to his notice by plaintiffs, who, at his solicitation, disclosed the owner's name, and the information received from plaintiffs was the primary cause of the purchaser afterward buying the land, then plaintiffs were entitled to recover, even though defendants showed the purchaser the land and assisted in closing the trade, and that if the purchaser promised plaintiffs to take it, if it suited, before defendants brought the land to the purchaser's notice, and the owner was notified by the plaintiffs of that fact, and the defendants afterwards took the purchaser to show him the land, then plaintiffs were entitled to recover, even though they did not close the trade for the land. Painter v. Kilgore (Tex. Civ. App. '07), 101 S. W. 809; Smith v. Sharp (Ala. Sup. '09), 50 S. 381. See also Sec. 446.