Defendant employed plaintiff to sell certain coal lands for $250,000, agreeing to pay $10,000 commissions in case a sale was effected within six months from August 19, 1904, and that if, during such time, the broker named to the defendant a probable purchaser, and the property came under such purchaser's control within a year from February 19, 1905, the broker should be entitled to commissions. The plaintiff, on the day the agreement was made, named the Ontario & Western Railway as a probable purchaser, and within the time specified the land was sold to R, who was secretary and treasurer of the Railroad Company and also of the S. Coal Co., the sale having been made through B, who was attorney for both companies. R thereafter transferred the property to the S. Coal Co., all of the stock of which, except a few qualifying shares, were owned by the Railroad Co., and it was also shown that a majority of the Coal Co.'s directors were directors of the Railway Co. Held, that the property was sold to the Railway Co. within the terms of the contract, entitling plaintiff to commissions. Langdon v. Taylor, 180 F. 385, 103 C. C. A. 531.

Where an owner of real estate, situate in a district within which a large part of the land is subject to ancient covenants, employs a broker to secure a purchaser, but neglects to inform the broker of the existence of the restrictions and covenants in his chain of title; unless the broker asks about it, the concealment of the owner is not the equivalent of a fraudulent concealment of the covenants. Ranger v. Leo, 121 N. Y. Sup. 328, 66 Misc. Rep. 144.

Plaintiff, a broker empowered to sell land for defendant, showed it to M. & B., brokers of plaintiff, and afterwards to M. & S., and discussed with them the terms of sale. Soon afterwards defendant told plaintiff that two men had been at his place, but wanted an option for the land; told him one of them was B., and showed him the card of M. & B. which they had left. Plaintiff, either not knowing the names of the men to whom he showed the land or being lacking in frankness, made no claim that the men who had been there were his parties, but disclaimed knowledge of them, and advised defendant to give them an option at the time, and afterwards defendant made a contract of sale to S., whereby. M. & B. were recognized as the brokers entitled to commissions. Held, that this having occurred through plaintiff's fault, he was not entitled to assert a right to commission, though on the day the contract of sale was signed he presented himself and claimed the commission, and defendant, in the presence of the conflicting claims, made him an offer of a certain amount, and ended the interview, indicating that he thought plaintiff had earned the commission, and that he was willing to do what was right. Courtney v. Rhodes, 133 N. Y. Sup. 363, 148 App. Div. 799.

Where a broker employed by defendant to make a sale for a foreign corporation which he owned concealed the fact that eight-ninths of the commission was to be paid to the foreign corporation agent receiving a salary and commission for making such sales, he was not entitled to commissions. Chas. F. Oar-rigues Co. v. International Agr. Corporation, 144 N. Y. Sup. 982, 159 App. Div. 577.

In an action by brokers for a share in the profits on land purchased by defendants from the broker's principals, evidence held to show that the brokers concealed their interest in the purchase from their principals, and that defendants knew of such concealment. Fred Brown & Co. v. Cash, 145 N. W. 80, 165 Iowa, 221.

Where a broker who was employed to sell property on commission was unable to make a sale to a prospective purchaser, and subsequently the owner sold directly to a third person who secretly acted for such prospective purchaser, and though such purchaser, on direct inquiry from the owner, disclaimed the desire to purchase, the broker could not recover commission from the owner on the theory that the sale was, in fact, to the purchaser procured by him, where, to do so, would necessitate the adoption by the broker of the prospective purchasers' method of obtaining title to the property at less price through concealment. Ritch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where, when an owner of land and an agent commenced their negotiations, they created a contract of agency and not one of sale by the owner to the agent, the agent, by no act of his, unexplained to the owner, could change the contract, and when he found a purchaser it was his duty to make correct representations to the owner as to the price he was to receive for the land and failing to do so and selling for more that he represented to the owner, he is responsible for the sum at which he did sell. Solmson v. Deese, 218 S. W. 657, - Ark. Sup. - .

In a real estate agent's action for commission on a sale of land, evidence held to show forfeiture by the agent of his right to commission for services in negotiating the sale, because of unfaithful conduct in first secretly closing the sale, as agent, for $3,400, and then representing to the principal that he could sell for $3,100. Avery v. Baird, 188 P. 254, - Kan. Sup. - .

Where one of the members of a firm of brokers engaged to effect an exchange of lands concealed from defendant that the party with whom the exchange was proposed to be effected was his father-in-law, the relationship raises a strong suspicion of want of good faith of the broker, and only slight circumstances are necessary to surround the same. Hume v. Baggott & Baggott, 221 S. W. 1002, - Tex. Civ. App. - .