(1) Where, in an action for broker's commissions in inducing a contract for an exchange of land for an interest in a stock of goods, defendant claimed that he was induced to sign the contract, which he subsequently refused to complete, because of false representations that the stock was unincumbered, and that the owner refused to complete the contract unless defendant would pay off the incumbrance on the goods, amounting to $2,000, the court erred in refusing to charge that if the jury found that, at the time of the contract, the owner of the goods falsely represented that the goods were unincumbered, and defendants were influenced thereby to execute the contract, they should return a verdict for him; since, if such misrepresentation was established, it invalidated the entire contract and rendered it unenforceable against defendant, unless the goods were denuded from their incumbrance. Webb v. Durrett, 136 S. W. 1189, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(2) Instruction that if a broker, having a contract for a commission of 10%, after securing a purchaser for $13,000, procured owner to agree to take $10,500 net, without informing him that the purchaser was to pay $13,000, defendant could not recover commission; held, improperly refused. Cardoza v. Middle Atlantic Em. Co., 82 S. E. 80, 116 Va. 342.

(3) In an action to recover for services in an alleged sale of land under a contract for a division of commissions, it was error to refuse to charge that intestate could not recover for a sale of a sixth interest in the land, if it was agreed that the contracted compensation should be paid out of the sale of the remainder under a subsequent option. Smith v. Crane, 154 S. W. 857, 169 Mo. App. 695.

(4) In an action by a real estate broker for a commission for procuring a tenant for defendant, it was error to refuse a charge requested by defendant, that if plaintiff introduced S. to defendant as a prospective tenant for one store, and S. afterwards applied to defendant, either on his own behalf or for himself and others, for a lease of a number of stores, this would not give plaintiff a claim for commissions, where the action was not to recover a commission for procuring a tenant for one store, but for procuring a lease to K. for nine stores. Meyer v. Improved Property Holding Co. of N. Y., 122 N. Y. Sup. 296, 137 App. Div. 691.

(5) Where, in a suit for a broker's commission, defendant pleaded that he had paid H. a commission, as the procuring cause of the sale, a requested charge that such payment, if any, would be no defense to plaintiff's action, and could not be construed for that purpose, should have been granted. Stephenson v. Jackson, 128 S. W. 1196, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(6) In broker's action, instruction authorizing recovery if $20,000 or more was obtained for the property; held, improperly refused, the charge given allowing recovery only if jury believed $27,000 was obtained. Crass v. Adams, 175 S. W. 510, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(7) An instruction that the issue was, whether a valid contract was made between defendant and C, that the burden of proving this was on the broker, and that, though such contract was made, defendant could not be held liable, unless he failed to perform it in some material point; held, improperly refused. Cardozo v. Middle Ail. Emi. Co., 82 S. E. 80, 116 Va. 342.

(8) That a broker acting for both parties to an exchange could not, of itself, warrant refusal of instruction that notice to broker was notice to principal. Ward v. Johnson, 170 P. 538, 87 Or. 314.

(9) In a broker's action for commissions on the sale of a farm, where plaintiff did not file his amendment first asserting an exclusive agency until he was in the trial, about four years from filing of the original petition, the court should have instructed, on defendant owner's request, that the matter was a circumstance to be weighed in connection with all the evidence. Thomas v. Wychoff, 174 K W. 26, - Iowa Sup. - .