As a general rule, brokers employed to procure a loan are not entitled to the commission therefor until the loan is made. Hol-liday v. Roxbury Distilling Co., 115 N. Y. S. 383; Slawson & Hobbs v. Rafter, 134 N. Y. Sup. 585, 76 Misc. Rep. 199; Birn-baum v. Nuger, 135 N. Y. Sup. 1; Stogsdill v. Holmes, 169 S. W. 961, 114 Ark. 574; Kinkead v. Hartley, 143 N. W. 591, 161 Iowa, 613, Ann. Cas. 1915 D, 1; Sparks v. Grassi, 165 N. Y. Sup. 519; In re Kaufmans' Est., 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 456, 465; Colvin Philips & Co. v. Newoc Co., 172 P. 355, - Wash. Sup. -; Hutchings v. Binford, 226 S. W. 537, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Mellin v. McDermott, 211 I11. App. 268.

Where one employing a broker to procure a loan on certain securities may be liable for breach of the contract, if the securities are not as valuable as he supposed and represented, so as to prevent him from obtaining the loan, the broker would not be entitled to recover commissions as for the full performance of the contract. Holliday v. Roxbury Distilling Co., 115 N. Y. S. 383. Compare Sec. 242.