Where a broker employed by the owners of land to effect a sale thereof, pretending to act for the principal, made a contract to sell the land to plaintiff's assignor, which was not binding on the owners, and plaintiff's assignor paid $200 on the contract, plaintiff can recover, in an action for damages on the broker's warranty of authority as agent to sell. Rowland v. Hall, 106 N. Y. S. 55, 121 App. Div. 459.

Where, in an action for a division of a broker's commissions defendant agreed to pay plaintiff one-half of the commissions earned on the sale, and defendant admitted receiving $287.50, it was proper for the court to assess the plaintiff's damages at one-half of such sum. McCleary v. Willis, 35 Wash. 676, 77 P. 1073; Jonston v. Porter, 131 P. 69, 21 Cal. App. 97.

In a broker's action to recover division of commissions, held, only entitled to recover such a proportion of the entire commission as the amount of land he was empowered to exchange bore to the whole property required by his client to make the exchange. Vich v. Foote, 136 N. W. 910, 155 Iowa, 664.

Where, in an action by a broker for his share of the profits derived from a sale procured by him of a mine under an agreement to divide "in such proportion as would be just and right;" the evidence was in irreconcilable conflict as to the customary division, many witnesses testifying that the usual division was fifty per cent., while others testified that the customary division varied from two and one-half to ten per cent. of the net profits, a decree allowing ten per cent. was proper. Law v. Seeley, 37 Wash. 166, 79 P. 606.

Where a broker was employed to sell certain land for $75,000, at a commission of $2,000, and after he had interested a purchaser his authority was revoked and the land was sold by his employer for $65,000, plaintiff was entitled to recover only his contract commissions, with interest thereon, and not the customary commissions or reasonable value of his services. McGovern v. Bennett, 146 Mich. 558, 109 N. W. 1055, 13 D. L. N. 853; Finck v. Pierce, 103 N. Y. S. 765, 53 Misc. 554.

Where a real estate agent delivered a contract for the exchange of property to the other party, in violation of his principal's instructions, the damage sustained by the principal in consequence of his refusal to perform the contract, and the expense of defending a suit by the other party's assignee for breach of the contract, and of a suit by the agent for commissions, are proper elements of recovery. Hawes v. Burkholz, 114 N. Y. S. 765.

Where a principal makes sales of land within the time for which he had listed it with a broker, the measure of the broker's recovery is the profit he would have realized if he had been permitted to perform. Blumenthal v. Bridges (Ark. Sup. '09), 120 S. W. 974. Contra, Milligan v. Owens, 123 Iowa, 285, 98 N. W. 792. Sec. 358.

In an action by a broker for compensation for procuring a purchaser before his authority to sell was wrongfully revoked, where the jury, on sufficient evidence, awarded the same amount that the parties had agreed on in case of sale, it is immaterial whether the contract price or the value of the services rendered should have been applied in ascertaining the damages. Hancock v. Stacy (Tex. Sup. '10), 125 S. W. 884.

Where a broker sued on his contract for commissions, his damages were limited to those he sustained by breach of the contract, and he was not entitled to any part of the profits made by defendants on a subsequent sale of the land. Montgomery V. Amsler (Tex. C. A. '09), 122 S. W. 307.

Criterion of the financial ability of a purchaser procured by brokers to meet the purchasing is not his ability to procure the money to pay for the land, but to respond in damages for breach of his contract to purchase. Goldsberry v. Eades, 142 S. W. 1080, 161 Mo. App. 8.

Where, through the owner's fault, the sale is not completed, the broker's commission is the value of his services, and not the difference between the stipulated price and the price named in the contract with the purchaser. Sperry Realty Co. v. Merriam Realty Co., 150 N. W. 785, 128 Minn. 217.

If defendant refuses to settle with plaintiff on commission notes for mortgage loan procured by plaintiff according to a contract between them, plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the notes which, prima facie, would be their face value. Wade v. Douglass, 143 S. W. 830, 161 Mo. App. 348.

Where defendant placed his property in the hands of plaintiff to find a lessee for the same, and plaintiff introduced parties to defendant to whom he subsequently leased his property on satisfactory terms, plaintiff would be entitled to the value of her services at the usual rate charged by brokers, irrespective of any special agreement as to the amount of her compensation. Kohen v. Kieley, 129 N. Y. Sup. 353.

A broker who secures a tenant for a term, with an option to renew at the end of the term, is entitled to commission only on the rents for the original term. Allwin v. Barth, 146 N. Y. Sup. 960, 161 App. Div. 568.

The commission on an exchange of real property should be based on the actual and not the trade value of the property. Cook v. Gordon, 137 P. 782, 68 Or. 557.

Where a broker effects a sale of property for sum named, he is entitled to his commission on such sum, irrespective of the fact that there was a mortgage upon the property. Peters v. Holmes, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 278.

A real estate broker employed to sell land and house for a fixed term is not entitled, on a breach of the contract, to recover commission on improvements placed upon the land sold by the owner, that not being within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Hagan v. Nashville Trust Co., 136 S. W. 993, 124 Tenn. 93.

Where a landowner authorized a broker to sell the land for $4 per acre net to such owner, and the owner, with knowledge of the fact, sold the land to broker's customer for $4, the broker could only recover the reasonable value of his services in the transaction. Haile v. Keller, 163 S. W. 373, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

A broker who offers to a prospective purchaser a plat of lands he had for sale, at the same time making an agreement for a commission to be paid him on a sale; held, limited to a commission on the land shown on the plat. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Gamble, 201 F. 329, 119 C. C. A. 567.

Where a broker, who was to receive all over an agreed price as his commission, produced a purchaser who agreed to pay an agreed price, and to pay for the growing fruit in addition, but the owner refused to carry out the contract, the measure of broker's compensation was the value of the fruit. Sill v. Ceschi, 140 P. 949, 167 Cal. 698.

Where brokers were given an exclusive agency to sell lands for $20,000 net, and entered into a contract to sell the same for $26,-000, and the owner revoked the agency, the broker is entitled to recover the damages sustained, and not the $6,000 stipulated in the contract. Williamson B. E. Co. v. Sasser, 103 S. E. 73, - N. C. Sup. - .