Where, in an action by a real estate broker for compensation for procuring a purchaser, it appeared that a memorandum as to the purchase had been made between the principal and the purchaser, calling for the execution of a completed contract at a specified time and place, evidence was admissible as to what occurred at such time and place, showing that the non-execution of the contract was due to the principal. Seid-man v. Banner, 99 N. Y. S. 862, 51 Misc. 10.

A broker's right to compensation is not affected by fraudulent representations made to the principal by third persons. Heaton v. Clarke, 122 Iowa, 716, 98 N. W. 597. Unless they are in privity with the broker. Thwing v. Clifford, 136 Mass. 482.

Where defendant employed plaintiff to sell certain standing timber, and dealt as though he was the owner, he could not defeat the plaintiff's right to commissions on a sale subsequently made to a purchaser found by plaintiff, by showing that at the time plaintiff was employed defendant did not own the land, but procured full title thereto before he sold it to such purchaser. McDonald v. Cabiness, 100 Tex. 615, 98 S. W. 943, affirmed 102 S. W. 721.

Subsequent dissatisfaction of the principal with the terms of payment to which she had agreed and on which the broker was authorized to sell the property, or with the terms agreed on with the purchaser found by the broker, if within his authority, does not justify the principal in refusing to complete the transaction. Fenn v. Ware, 100 Ga. 563, 28 S. E. 238; Miller v. Barth, 71 N. Y. S. 989, 35 Misc. 372; Hart v. Ehrhardt, 177 I11. App. 145.

That the principal is ignorant of the efforts of his broker in procuring a customer, does not affect the broker's right to commissions. Colonial Trust Co. v. Pacific Packing & Nav. Co., 158 Fed. 277, 85 C. C. A. 539; Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636; Jackson v. Brower, 167 P. 6, 22 N. M. 615; Hill v. Huber, 202 S. W. 785, - Tex. Civ. App. - . See also Sec. 540.

The failure of a prospective purchaser of coal lands to rely upon the owner's representation and the broker employed to find a purchaser that a railway had consented or agreed to construct a branch railroad into such lands, does not defeat the broker's right to his agreed commissions, where, relying upon such representations, he found a purchaser, and the sale fails because of their inaccuracy. Dotson v. Milliken, 209 U. S. 237, 52 L. Ed. 768. See also Sec. 165.

A broker is not entitled to commissions on sales made by the principal, uninfluenced by the broker. Humphries & J. v. Smith, 5 Ga. App. 340, 63 S. E. 248; Brady v. Maddox, 124 S. W. 739, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Morris v. Clark, 80 S. 406, - Ala. Sup. -; Harris & White v. Stone, 207 S. W. 443, - Ark. Sup. -; Dickinson v. Robinson, 82 S. 398, - La. Sup. - . See Secs. 142, 169.

Where a broker has procured a purchaser for land, and while his agency is unrevoked, and he is still negotiating with a purchaser at the owner's stipulated price, the owner sells through another broker, the original broker is, nevertheless, entitled to his commissions. Hovey v. Aaron, 113 S. W. 718, 133 Mo. App. 573. Compare Secs. 41, 141, 445.

Where brokers procured a purchaser from premises listed with them for sale, who was ready, able and willing to buy the premises at the terms named by the owners, and the purchaser and owners came to an agreement, the brokers were entitled to a commission though the premises were not sold because the owners, before the contract was signed, raised the price, which the purchaser would not pay. Sotsky v. Ginsberg, 114 N. Y. S. 114, 120 App. Div. 441. See also Sec. 55.

A party can not defeat his obligation to pay real estate commissions by voluntarily cancelling the contract of purchase and sale obtained by the real estate agent. Myers v. Buell, 142 I11. App. 467.

Where defendants, real estate brokers, agreed to procure a purchaser for plaintiff's property, and in fact procured a person who executed a contract, valid on its face, with plaintiff for an exchange of property, defendants were entitled to their commissions, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs misrepresented their property to the purchaser so as to justify him in refusing to carry out the exchange. Lewis v. Mansfield Grain & Elevator Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 121 S. W. 585; Button v. Stewart, 135 P. 681, 90 Kan. 602.

The fact that the one who was employed to procure a purchaser of real estate violated his contract of employment with a third person engaged in the banking and real estate business did not defeat his right to recover his commissions from the owner on procuring a purchaser. Pomerici v. Rosenbloom, 120 N. Y. S. 756; Kice v. Dugan, 137 S. W. 240, 143 Ky. 676.

In an action to recover commissions for a sale of property for which plaintiffs agreed to secure a purchaser, the plaintiffs' proposed purchaser would not purchase upon the terms agreed upon between plaintiffs and defendant, though defendant thereafter sold the premises by a different broker to the partner of plaintiffs' proposed purchaser. In the absence of bad faith by defendant in making the sale, plaintiffs could not recover any commissions. Nadler v. Menschel, 110 N. Y. Sup. 384.

A real estate broker held not entitled to a commission merely because he conducts negotiations for a particular property which the plaintiff subsequently acquires from another broker after he has discontinued his efforts. J. A. Patterson Co. v. United Gas Imp. Co., 86 A. 852, 239 Pa. 277.

A broker seeking to recover commissions under a contract stipulating for a commission for urging a third person to purchase property, need not show that his urging was an inducement, or the procuring cause of the sale to the third person, but he may recover on proof that he saw the third person and urged him to buy the property, and that the third person purchased it. Tuf-free v. Saint, 126 HT. W. 373, 147 Iowa, 361.

Owner who sold to broker's customer held not entitled to defeat broker's suit for commission on the ground that his contract with the buyer was only a conditional one when the suit was begun. Burdett v. Parish, 172 S. W. 620, 185 Mo. App. 605.

Broker who fails to find a purchaser for land within the time limited by his contract with the owner is not entitled to a commission, though a sale is subsequently made to the purchaser who negotiated with the broker within such time, provided the owner acted in good faith and did not interfere with the agent's efforts to make a sale within the specified time. Murray v. Miller, 166 S. W. 536, 112 Ark. 227, Ann. Cas. 1916 B, 974.

The plaintiff was to procure a purchaser for land owned by the defendant for an agreed compensation, and the plaintiff found a purchaser who made a conditional agreement to buy the land, but by a condition assumed absolutely, the purchaser agreed with defendant to purchase the land through another agent, and, while such agreement for a purchase was pending, plaintiff, in his action for compensation, levied an attachment on the land, because of which the purchaser refused to close the trade until the attachment was released. Held, that having defeated the sale the plaintiff had no right of action. Rogers v. McMillan, 132 S. W. 853, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 486.

Where realty broker is the instrument through which sale has been effected, no artifice, deceit or fraud will deprive him of his commission. Luzzadder v. McCall, 198 S. W. 1144, - Mo. App. - .

In an action by a broker for his commissions against the vendor of property, where there was an agreement between the broker and vendor that, unknown to the purchaser, a certain sum out of the supposed purchase price was to go to such broker, the apparent deception of the purchaser does not affect the vendor's liability. Strassheim v. Reuttinger, 198 I11. App. 258.

Under contract to pay a commission to broker effecting a sale or procuring a purchaser, broker was not entitled to a commission if owner sold the property without his aid following after his failure to effect a sale, though sale was to one whom broker had introduced as prospective purchaser. Ford v. Shaffer, 79 S. 172, - La. Sup. - .

Evidence held to show that the broker was not the procuring cause of the sale of defendant's property to the person to whom he, and many other parties, had mentioned the property, and whom the owner induced to buy it, without knowledge that the broker had spoken to him about the property. Gammell v. Cox, 219 S. W. 745, - Ark. Sup. - .

Brokers are entitled to their commission under a contract authorizing them to sell land within one year, where they procured an offer and reported it to the owner, who accepted it before the expiration of the year, though a formal contract of sale was not signed until the year had expired. Chandler v. Caines-Ferguson Realty Co., 224 S. W. 484, - Ark. Sup. - .

Plaintiff who, at his own solicitation, was given a chance to sell land, with a distinct agreement that he must look to the purchaser for any commission, landowner's sole interest being that net price be a certain amount, plaintiff being informed that he was not a broker, and could not be entitled to any commission, was not entitled to a commission, where parties to whose notice the property had been brought refused to deal with him, and dealt directly with the owner. Hurley v. Randall, I11 A. 530, - R. I. Sup. - .