In an action by a real estate broker against the owner of real estate to recover a commission for procuring a purchaser of the property, with whom the owner makes a contract of sale, which he afterwards refuses to consummate, the trial court errs in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant where it appears that the broker originally approached the owner at the suggestion of the prospective purchaser for the sole purpose of getting the property for the latter; that without disclosing the name of the purchaser to the owner he made an offer for the property at the price named by the purchaser which was less than that fixed by the owner, which offer the owner refused; that his explanation of his many subsequent visits to the owner which resulted in a contract of sale at the original price fixed was that he was trying to get the property for the purchaser; that, accepting his statement as true that the owner employed him to act as his agent and promised to pay him a commission, he tried to induce the owner to reduce the price in the interest of the purchaser, and that, according to his own statement, he was trying to get the property as cheap as he could for the buyer. Harten v. Loffler, 31 App. D. C. 362. See also Sec. 314.