Defendants agreed to procure a purchaser for plaintiffs' property, and procured one with whom plaintiffs executed a written contract, which provided that to bind the contract the purchaser had deposited with defendants a warranty deed to a certain tract, part of the property to be exchanged, and that plaintiffs had paid to them $500, and, if the title should prove defective upon examination, the sum deposited and the deed should be returned to the respective parties, but if the title proved good and the purchaser failed to perform, his title to the tract mentioned should pass to the plaintiffs according to the deed deposited with defendants, in settlement of commissions and liquidated damages, and if plaintiffs failed to perform, the $500 should be forfeited in payment of commissions and liquidated damages, and if both parties failed to perform, the purchaser authorized plaintiffs to convey to defendants the tract above mentioned to secure to them the payment of the $500 as commissions, and that such sum should be forfeited to defendants as commissions and liquidated damages. Held, that, even if defendants were bound by the contract between plaintiffs and the purchaser, it did not make their commissions depend upon the consummation of the exchange, but upon the approval of the titles of the properties; nor did it require defendants to look to the purchaser for their commissions if he breached his contract with plaintiffs, they being bound to pay the commissions in such case, as the purchaser's title to the contract mentioned passed to the plaintiffs in accordance with the deed deposited with defendants. Id.

Broker's contract of employment construed, and held that where the prospective tenant did not prove complete compliance or execute a lease, as provided therein, without the fault of the principal, no commissions were earned. Leventritt v. Cowell, 132 P. 627, 21 Cal. App. 597.