A broker employed to find a buyer is not necessarily guilty of fraud because he seeks to induce his principal to reduce the price, even though he might know he could obtain the price asked. Gorman v. Hargis, 6 Okla. 360, 50 P. 92. Compare Hobart v. Sherburne, 66 Minn. 17, 68 N. W. 841. See also Secs. 290, 291.

It is not an act of disloyalty after obtaining an option on land at the lowest price for which the owner would sell and suspecting that his employer would not take at that price, for the broker with his employer's knowledge to solicit other purchasers whom he informed that his employer should have the first right to purchase. Hinton v. Coleman, 76 Wis. 221, 45 N. W. 26. A broker negotiated a sale of plaintiff's land to defendant, but had the deed made out to a third person, who afterwards conveyed to defendant. A few weeks after the sale defendant agreed to let the broker sell the land for him at an advance, the profits to be equally divided between them. Plaintiff did not know at the time of the sale that defendant was the purchaser and there was then no arrangement or understanding between defendant and the broker as to any resale of the property or division of the profits. Held, that there was nothing in the transaction in fraud of plaintiff, and the subsequent sale did not constitute a fraud on the vendor. Lawrence v. Layton, 145 I11. 92, 34 N. E. 53.

A real estate broker is not liable to a customer for false representations respecting lands, where he states that his information is derived from his principal, and the facts respecting which the representations are made are not such as would be peculiarly within his knowledge. Griffing v. Diller, 21 N. Y. S. 407.

If a broker acts as a mere middleman his conduct in concealing from each principal his agreement with the other is not fraudulent. Jarvis v. Sckaefer, 105 N. Y. 289, 11 N. E. 634.

An agent authorized by contract to sell real estate to any purchaser thereafter to be secured, is not guilty of fraud for failing to disclose the identity of the proposed purchaser, where it appears that the vendors neither asked nor made any attempt to ascertain who such purchaser was. Bank v. Garvey, 66 Neb. 767, 92 N. W. 1025, affirmed on rehearing 66 Neb. 767, 99 N. W. 666.

Where a real estate agent with authority to sell his principal's land reports to another agent of the principal that he can not sell the land so as to net the principal a certain sum, and that he is making a sale for a greater sum, but that the excess will be retained by him as his commission, and no contract is shown that he shall receive any specified amount for his service, though the amount of the excess is not disclosed, the agent commits no fraud by not disclosing such amount. Deming Inv. Co. v. Meyer (Okla. Sup. '07), 91 P. 846; Fulton v. Waiters, 216 Pa. 56, 64 A. 860. Compare Sec. 456.

In an action to recover a real estate broker's commissions, it appeared that the owners, in naming their price, had informed the broker that they were willing to sell for less, if necessary, and that a prospective purchaser who had obtained an option from the broker was, before the owners had reduced the price, negotiating to sell the land to a third person for less than the owners' upset price. Held, that the facts did not conclusively prove that the broker had acted in had faith. Harvey v. Lindsay, 117 Mich. 267, 75 N. W. 627.

Proof that an owner employing a broker to procure a purchaser allowed the broker to take as his commission a part of the money paid by the purchaser procured by him, in reliance on the broker's representations that the purchaser was able to and would consummate his purchase according to the contract entered into between him and the owner, and that the purchaser was insolvent, was insufficient to authorize a recovery by the owner of the commissions paid, on the ground of fraud of the broker. Moore v. Irvin, 89 Ark. 289, 116 S. W. 662.

A real estate broker had a customer desirous of purchasing property of a particular character, but the customer had no definite intention of buying any particular property. The broker entered into negotiations with the owner to employ him to procure a purchaser. The customer purchased the property. Prior to the broker's employment the customer had not communicated with the owner, nor with any one representing him in relation to the purchase. The broker represented to the owner that he thought that he could produce a purchaser willing to purchase on the terms specified, on his being allowed a commission for so doing. Held, that the broker was not guilty of fraud in obtaining his contract to procure a purchaser, and he could recover his commissions. Larson v. Thoma (Iowa Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 1059.

A broker does not forfeit his right to commissions on a sale of real estate that he was instrumental in bringing about, because he had other real estate for sale, belonging to other persons, which he tried to sell to the same purchaser. Lemmon v. Macklem (Mich. Sup. '09), 122 N. W. 77.

Land was listed with a real estate broker at a stated price per acre, there being no agreement as to commission. After some negotiations owner agreed to accept a less price per acre and to pay a stated commission. A certain amount was to be paid in cash and the balance by a mortgage. The broker made a contract at an advanced price, and of this he did not inform the owner. The agreement was not carried out, as the owner had, unknown to the broker, sold the land in question. Held, that as knowledge of the acts must have come to the notice of the owner, and when the transaction was consummated, even if the broker intended to demand an additional commission, though he was not legally entitled to it, yet he was not guilty of fraud within Civil Code, Sec. 1203, providing that fraud is a question of fact and must be deducible from the evidence. Luce v. Ash, 132 N. W. 708, 28 S. D. 109.

Where vendor's agent did not describe the land to the purchaser, but merely pointed it out on a map which both he and the purchaser believed to be correct, but which incorrectly showed a creek as running through the land, he was not guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations. Dashiell v. Christian, 152 S. W. 1112, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Brokers were entitled to receive commissions, though they induced the president of a corporation to agree to an unconscionable contract, their conduct not amounting to such fraud as would deny them of all commissions. Bassick v. Aetna Expl. Co., 246 F. 974.