Where a purchaser is produced and a sale consummated by one of two brokers who have the property for sale, and a commission paid him by the owner, the fact that the other broker has, by advertising, found a customer, and by interviews induced him to make the purchase, will not make the owner liable to him also. Daniels v. Columbia Heights Ld. Co., 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 483; Winans v. Jacques, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 487.

An instruction that an employer of two or more real estate brokers may make a sale to a buyer produced by either, and is not bound to decide which is the primary cause of the purchase, is properly refused when the evidence shows that the employer of two brokers, sued by one of them, had full notice that he was the procuring cause of the sale. Eggleston v. Austin, 27 Kan. 245. The court properly charged that, as there are different kinds of sales of land, and such contract does not specify the kind, it is for the jury to determine from the evidence and the letters forming the contract, and the attending circumstances, as to whether it included only the auction sales, or both auction and private sales, for which plaintiff was to receive a commission. Coolican v. Mil. & 8. St. M. Im. Co. 79 Wis. 471, 48 N. W. 717.

Defendant, living in New York, placed a farm in the hands of plaintiff and S., two different real estate agents in Winnipeg for sale. Plaintiff found a purchaser at $12 per acre in cash, and informed defendant by letter. Defendant replied, accepting the offer, and asking plaintiff to call on S. and arrange regarding commissions, so as to avoid having to pay more than one commission. Plaintiff did not communicate with S., but introduced his purchaser to defendant's solicitor in Winnipeg. This purchaser paid the solicitor $500 on account, and was ready and willing to pay the balance, on receipt of the transfer. Meantime S. also made a sale of the farm at the same price. This latter sale was carried through by defendant, who paid S. the usual commission. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to his commission, as he had done all that was necessary to earn it. Bell v. Rokeby, 15 Manitoba, 327.

Broker employed to procure a customer with whom the principal would enter into an option contract on terms agreed on between the principals need not consummate the deal, and where the principal employs another broker therefor, he is liable for a double commission. Leadville Mining Co. v. Hemphill, 149 P. 384, 17 Ariz. 146.

Where an owner placed his property in the hands of several agents for sale, and agreed to pay the commission to the first making a sale, the owner cannot be required to pay a commission to two agents, though one agent may possibly obtain benefits of work of another. House v. Barley, 147 S. W. 303, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Broker entitled to a commission from one principal, although known to have been the agent of the other party to the transaction. Gudgel v. Cool, 142 S. W. 1014, 146 Ky. 439.

The fact that defendant intimates a possibility of liability to pay commissions to two brokers for the sale of the same property is immaterial, as such liability can not be predicated on her ignorance of the law. Myers v. Batcheller, 163 N. Y. Sup. 688, 177 App. Div. 47.

Where contracts were made with two realty brokers, it was incumbent on them to show that both were to receive commissions for procuring purchaser and effecting a sale of the same property. Id.

Where defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission for exchanging property, and another party agreed to pay plaintiff a like commission, and the minds of the principals met, but defendant broke the contract, the broker could recover from him only the single commission due from defendant. Windman v. Bulkostein, 168 N. Y. Supp. 57.

Where, in a broker's office where defendant listed a house for sale, a third party said, in his presence, he could furnish a buyer if the broker would split commissions, and the house was sold, such third party was not a partner of the broker, and settlement with him was not a settlement with the broker. Home Securities Co. v. Todd, 165 N. W. 204, - Iowa Sup. - .

A party to an exchange, recognizing by offer that broker is acting for the other party, is liable for commissions as agreed, though the broker receives a commission from the other party. John Reis & Co. v. Post, 170 N. Y. Supp. 610, 183 App. Div. 696.

If each of two brokers performed his independent contract to procure a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy the property at the specified price, each will be entitled to compensation. Alton & Peters v. Merrit, 177 N. W. 770, - Minn. Sup. - .

In an action by real estate brokers to recover a commission promised by a corporate stockholder if they succeeded in selling corporate lands, where the stockholder's written offer referred to the formation of a syndicate by the brokers, and it was uncontradicted that he was informed the brokers would not act unless they also received a commission from the syndicate, or corporation orgainzed, recovery can not be denied on the ground that the brokers received compensation from the corporation organized. Hortman v. Selling, 189 P. 887, - Or. Sup. - .

Where an agent to find a purchaser for realty reports an offer on the prescribed terms, and owner says that he is negotiating a sale to another, but that if it falls through the agent can go ahead with his deal, and within a few days, and without the agent's knowledge, sells to some prospect brought to him by another agent, to whom he pays a commission, the first agent, if otherwise the proximate, efficient cause of the sale, may recover his commission, though he did not introduce his customer to the owner. Osburn v. Moore, 193 P. 892, - Kan. Sup. - .