(1) In an action for share of profits on purchase of land in which sellers intervened, evidence held to show that plaintiffs were agents for the sellers for the sale of the land. Fred Brown & Co. v. Cash, 145 N. W. 80, 165 Iowa, 221.

(2) Evidence in an action for commission for procuring a sale of realty; held, to show that the sale was not made in a reasonable time. Alford v. Creagh, 62 S. 254, 7 Ala. App. 358.

(3) In an action for commissions for procuring an exchange of realty, evidence held to sustain a finding that defendant agreed to pay a commission, if plaintiff should procure some one willing to find a purchaser or one who would exchange. Simpson v. Blewitt, 160 S. W. 1087, 110 Ark. 87.

(4) Evidence, in an action for commission for procuring a sale of realty, held to show that neither exchange nor sale was effected by the broker. Naylor v. Ashton, 130 P. 181, 20 Cal. App. 544.

(5) Broker's testimony, in an action against another broker for commission, held to support a finding of a contract to pay commissions, notwithstanding other conflicting testimony. Johnston v. Porter, 131 P. 69, 21 Cal. App. 997.

(6) If it was necessary to show agent's right to commission on the sale, proof that he was entitled to such commission under an agreement with a third broker, who had a contract with the owner, was sufficient. Id.

(7) In an action by a broker for commission earned by negotiating lease, evidence held sufficient to justify finding that the agreement to pay was not conditioned upon the procuring of a lessee who would not require the lessor to install a vault and steam heating apparatus. Creditors' Adjustment Co. v. Rossi, 148 P. 528, 26 Cal. App. 725.

(8) In an action brought by a member of a real estate firm in his own name, to recover his share of a commission for selling real estate, under a written contract between defendant and the firm, evidence held insufficient to show a parol agreement by defendant to pay plaintiff, individually, his share of the commission. Lockett v. Zimmerman, 185 I11. App. 58.

(9) Evidence, in an action for a broker's commission, held to show that the exclusive agency granted plaintiff had terminated. Rasor & Johnston v. Spurling, 184 I11. App. 357.

(10) In an action for commissions for procuring a purchaser for real estate, evidence held to show that the plaintiffs were verbally authorized to sell the land, that they found a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy, and that the defendant refused to consummate the sale. Schneider v. Commons, 190 I11. App. 121.

(11) Where a broker sued to recover commission for effecting a sale of real estate, evidence held insufficient to show that the owner acted in bad faith in selling the property through another agent sells to entitle each broker to a commission. Baldimo v. Henneberry, 191 I11. App. 368.

(12) Where each of two brokers, in whose hands property had been placed for the purpose of securing a tenant, submitted the name of the same person as a prospective tenant, assent of the principal to protect both was insufficient, in itself, to show liability to the one not actually furnishing a tenant. Thorpe v. Cameron-Schroth Co., 191 I11. App. 455.

(13) In an action by a real estate broker for commission in negotiating a contract for an exchange of defendant's real estate, evidence held to show that plaintiffs had procured the execution of a valid and enforceable contract, and to support a recovery of the commissions provided for in the contract. Darby v. Gudich-son, 191 I11. App. 604.

(14) In an action to recover commissions for services in effecting an exchange of real estate, evidence held to show that plaintiff was engaged in the business of brokerage as an occupation, without having procured a license, and that therefore he was not entitled to recover. Roman v. Dadkel, 192 I11. App. 603.

(15) Evidence held sufficient to show that party employing broker was liable in fact, although she was acting as referee in selling the land. Jones v. Ford, 134 N. W. 569, 154 Iowa, 549.

(16) Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the contract with the broker for commissions did not contemplate an agreement afterwards made by the owner with another for the survey and sale of the property. May v. Brackett, 140 N. W. 209, 159 Iowa, 101.

(17) In an action for commissions for procuring a purchaser for property, evidence held not to show that defendant made a pretended sale to another, and through him to the purchaser whom plaintiff had procured, for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff of his commission. Beamer v. Stuber, 145 N. W. 936, 164 Iowa, 309.

(18) Evidence held to support a finding that defendant engaged plaintiff to procure an exchange of his land, that plaintiff brought defendant and another together, and that they entered into a contract for the exchange, defendant not then objecting to a mineral lease on the other party's land. Allgood v. Fahrney, 146 N. W. 42, 164 Iowa, 540.

(19) In a suit against a bank, which acted as a broker, for commission for sale of a farm made by plaintiff, evidence held to show that the bank which received the commission was liable for the land so listed with another. Benzler v. First Nat. Bank, 154 N. W. 471, - Iowa Sup. - .

(20) Evidence, in an action to recover broker's commission on a sale of real estate; held, not to show an express promise to pay the agent the cash received over a stipulated sum. Jordan v. Hill, 154 N. W. 579, 172 Iowa, 414.

(21) In an action on an agreement to divide commissions, evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff did not, subsequent to the agreement, agree to accept a sum in lieu of the profits, but that defendant financed the deal adversely to plaintiff. Jones v. Lorack, 156 N. W. 373, - Iowa Sup. - .

(22) Evidence, in an action for commission on a sale of realty; . held, to show that the oral contract superseding the written one between the parties, did not bind plaintiff to sell the property at $3,500, to be entitled to a commission. Rance v. Bobinson Inv. Co., 154 P. 224, 97 Kan. 11.