Where a real estate agent fails to sell the property and directs a prospective purchaser to trade with the owner, who sells the property, relying on the broker's abandonment of the employment, the broker can not recover commissions. Enochs v. Pax-ion, 87 Miss. 660, 40 S. 14. A broker employed by the owner of land to secure a purchaser for it produced two persons who obtained a written agreement from the owner to sell the land to them, but did not sign the agreement, and afterwards abandoned the deal by refusing to take a deed. Held, that the broker was not entitled to a commission. Kampf v. Dreyer, 103 N. Y. S. 962, 119 App. Div. 134; Massie v. Chatom, 127 P. 56, 163 Cal. 772. See Sec. 33.

A sale of property negotiated by a broker for $38,000, provided for the payment in cash of $500, a payment of $4,500 on a later date, when the deed was to be delivered, and a mortgage for the remainder given, together with a bond for improvements to be placed on the property by the purchaser; on the date when the deed was to be given the purchaser was unable to comply with the contract, but paid $3,000, and further time was granted; a few months later the purchaser, still being unable to comply with the contract, gave his note to the vendor for $2,000, and the contract was cancelled. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions. Riggs v. Turnbull, 105 Md. 135, 66 A. 13, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824. A broker who abandons his employment is not entitled to commissions on a sale afterwards made to his customer by the principal or through another agent. Everett v. Farrel, 11 Ind. App. 185, 38 N. E. 872; Watts v. Howard, 51 I11. App. 243; Lipe v. Ludwick, 14 I11. App. 372; Singer, etc., Stone Co. v. Hutchison, 61 I11. App. 308; Rigdon v. Strong, 128 I11. App. 447; Moore v. Cresap, 109 Iowa 749, 80 N. W. 399; Cathcart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34, 49 N. W. 331; Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521, 88 N. W. 15; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226, 45 N. W. 428; Tooker v. Duckworth, 107 Mo. App. 231, 80 S. W. 963; Barnard v. Monnott, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 90; Meyer v. Straus, 58 N. Y. S. 904, 42 App. Div. 613; Getzler v. Boehm, 38 N. Y. S. 52, 16 Misc. 390; Bouscher v. Larkins, 84 Hun 288, 32 N. Y. S. 305; Hay v. Platt, 21 N. Y. S. 362, 66 Hun 488; Marcus v. Kenneally, 43 N. Y. S. 1056,19 Misc. 517; Halley v. Townsend, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 34; Miller v. Vining, 98 N. Y. S. 466, 112 App. Div. 304; Lewis v. Manson, 61 S. 835, 132 La. 817; Haines v. Wooster, 133 P. 998, 22 Cal. App. 197; McCombs v. Moss, 181 S. W. 907, 121 Ark. 533; Hume v. Boz Co., 204 S. W. 673, - Tex. Civ. App. - . See also Sec. 558.

A mere refusal by the broker, at the request of the purchaser, to again see the seller and endeavor to obtain a lower price, does not constitute an abandonment of his employment, or bar commissions on a sale afterward made by the owner to such customer. McCormack v. Henderson, 100 Mo. App. 647, 75 S. W. 171; Parks v. Sullivan, 152 S. W. 704, - Tex. Civ. App. Where the owner of property employed a broker to sell it, and after a month or two it was agreed that the broker's authority should cease, and three or four years after the owner sold the property to one with whom the broker had negotiated with two years prior thereto, he was not entitled to commissions, although he called the attention of the purchaser to the property and introduced him to the owner. Staehlin v. Kramer, 118 Mo. App. 329, 94 S. W. 785.

In order to constitute abandonment of negotiations between a broker and a prospective purchaser so as to defeat recovery of commissions, mere discontinuance for a short time is insufficient, but the evidence also must show an abandonment of all intention of purchasing the property. Rasar v. Johnson & Spurling, 176 I11. App. 340.

Where broker, without disclosing to employer, agreed for commissions with person who desired to exchange farm, which was subsequent to beginning of negotiations between such person and his own employer, arrangement may be regarded as abandonment of agency. Whittle v. Klipper, 105 N. W. 425; - Iowa Sup. - .

Where broker employed to sell, after principal had opened negotiations for exchange, agreed with hostile agents to pool commissions, arrangement may be regarded as abandonment of agency. Id.

Real estate broker attempted by indirect and detestable means to become purchaser himself of property which he has undertaken to sell as agent, is equivalent to a renunciation of the agency, and nothing short of an unequivocal recognition of the existence of the agency by the parties, with full knowledge of the facts, can re-establish agency. Prouty v. Blanchard, 106 A. 831, - Vt. - .

The fact that when a principal tendered her broker a deed to lots conveyed to her by him, and demanded payment of money retained by such broker from the proceeds of land sold by him for her, she made no mention of furniture included with a lot conveyed to her, does not invalidate the rescission, where the broker refused to rescind. Puffer v. Bradley, 181 P. 1, - Or. Sup. - .

Whether a broker abandoned his contract was largely a question of intention to be inferred from the facts and circumstances proved. Bradley v. Blandin, 110 A. 309, - Vt. Sup. - .