The owner of city lots employed two persons, associated together as real estate agents, to sell them, and fixed the price at $14,000; a purchaser was secured by the agents at $16,000, to whom a deed was executed direct by the owner, the agents accounting only for $14,000, claiming that to be the full amount received, and being paid a commission thereon by the employer; on discovering that $16,000 had been received from the purchaser, the owner first demanded a return of the check given for commissions, which was returned, and then sued the agents for the additional $2,000 and recovered; the judgment being right on the merits, and the issues all having been found in favor of the plaintiff, and well supported by the evidence, it must be affirmed. Collins v. McClurg, 1 Colo. App. 348, 29 P. 299; Babcock v. De Mott, 160 Fed. 882; Tate v. Aitiken, 5 Cal. App. 505, 90 P. 836; Borst v. Lynch, 133 Iowa, 567, 110 N. W. 1031; Dater v. Jackson, 76 Kan. 568, 92 P. 546; Fulton v. Waiters, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 269, reversed 216 Pa. St. 56; Hall v. Kellogg, 94 S. W. 389, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 636, Lee v. Pattillo, 105 Va. 10, 52 S. E. 696; Easterly v. Mills (Wash. Sup. '09), 103 P. 475; Forbes v. Thorpe, 95 N. E. 955, 200 Mass. 570; Middlefork Cattle Co. v. Todd, 144 P. 641, 49 Mont. 259; Waterbury v. Barry, 130 N. Y. Supp. 517, 145 App.

Div. 773; 28 L. E. A. (N. S.) 952; Ratliffe v. Cease, 164 P. 1091, 100 Kan. 445; McBride v. Campredon, 171 P. 140, L. R. A. 1918 D, 407, - N. M. Sup. -; Sutherland v. Guthrie, 103 S. E. 298, - W. Va. Sup. - .

Defendants, brokers, being authorized by plaintiffs to sell land for $2,300, intrusted the matter to G, an employe, who persuaded one S to take the land for $2,300, promising that defendants would raise the money for him; defendants failed to raise the money, whereupon S begged G to find some one to take the contract off his hands and save him the $100 paid to plaintiff; defendants having then disposed of part of the land to the amount of $600, H, an employe of defendants, with knowledge of the facts, agreed to take over the contract, S to take another part of the land for $600, counting in his $100 paid; these two sales for $600 each amounted to half of the land; plaintiff not knowing that H was an employe of defendants gave him a deed, and received from him $2,300, less $200 commissions paid defendants; H later sold the rest of the land for $2,100. Held, that defendants and H were guilty of a legal fraud on plaintiff, and must, as trustees, account to him for the profits realized. Powers v. Black, 159 Pa. St. 153, 28 A. 133; Mowbry v. Randolph, 7 Cal. App. 421, 94 P. 403.

One who, knowing of an opportunity to sell for $30 an acre, and then knowing the court would not allow a third of the purchase money as commissions, gets an ostensible purchaser, at a smaller price, as a means of passing title, is precluded from obtaining a commission by his fraud on the court of which the receiver was an officer. Ryan v. Kahler (Tex. Civ. App. '98), 46 S. W. 71.

M's agent agreed to pay plaintiff a commission for selling M 's land, and defendant offered to exchange his land therefor and for $210 in addition; plaintiff submitted the proposition to M's agent, who accepted it, and an agreement for exchange was executed by such agent in accordance with defendant's proposition and placed in plaintiff's hands to have defendant sign it; without disclosing the fact that the agreement for exchange had already been executed by M, plaintiff told defendant that a trade could be made, but defendant said he would pay no commission, but would trade even, if such a trade could be effected, and executed a written agreement to that effect; the exchange was duly made on the terms first proposed by defendant, and the $210 paid over to him. Held, to show that plaintiff was acting as M's agent, and that he was not entitled to recover the $210, or any other commission from defendant. Wilson v. Webster, 88 Iowa, 514, 55 N. W. 571; Braden v. Bandies, 128 Iowa, 653, 105 N. W. 195.

Where it appears that a real estate agent employed to sell land had acted in similar transactions for the vendor, that after making the sale the agent was active in assisting the vendee's agent in clearing up some defects in the title; that he filled up a deed and carried it to the vendor to sign, and then took it away, without objection on the part of the vendor, delivered it to the vendee's agent and received the purchase money, which he appropriated to his own use, and that the vendor subsequently admitted to disinterested persons that she had authorized the agent to collect the money, the loss thereof must fall on the vendor, under whose authority the agent acted. Frank v. Levy, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 554. Compare Rhode v. Marquis, 135 Mich. 48, 97 N. W. 53.

If a real estate agent authorized to sell land at a given price, three years after, when the value has greatly advanced and is rapidly rising, sells the same at the price named, and at a great sacrifice, without informing the principal of the rise in value, this will be such a fraud upon the principal that a court of equity will refuse to enforce a conveyance to the purchaser. Proudfoot v. Wightman, 78 I11. 553. See Wilkinson v. Churchill, 114 Mass. 184.

Defendants signed and acknowledged a note and deed of trust, and left them with their agent, a professed real estate and loan broker, for the purpose of having him obtain the amount of the note from complainant, to whom the note was made payable; the agent presented the instrument to complainant, who paid over to him the amount of the note in good faith, and took the note and deed; the agent fraudulently reported that he could not use the note and trust deed, and in the presence of one of the defendants tore up and destroyed what purported to be said note and trust deed. Held, that defendants were not entitled to be relieved against the enforcement of the instrument. Kallbom v. Lipp, 20 I11. App. 414. See Secs. 99, 313, 315, 316.