A real estate agent employed to sell land for a certain net price is not entitled, in the absence of a contract therefor, to any excess over such price that he may obtain for the land, there being no contract to that effect. Snow v. McFarlane, 51 I11. App. 448; Turnley v. Michael (Tex. Civ. App. '91), 15 S. W. 912; Kellogg v. Keeler, 27 I11. App. 244. Compare Deming Inv. Co. v. Meyer (Okla. Sup. '07), 91 P. 846, Sec. 290.

In an action for the violation of duties due to plaintiff as broker, it appeared that defendant informed plaintiff that he had certain lots for sale at $17,500; the lots had been placed in defendant's hands by E., another broker, with whom they had been placed by the owner, and the price asked by defendant was that fixed by the owner; plaintiff refused to buy at that price and offered $13;000; defendant reported the bid to E., who was informed by the owner that he could have the lots at $12,000, without commissions; E. then instructed defendant to offer the lots to plaintiff at $14,000, which offer plaintiff accepted, and defendant then procured a contract, and reported that he had bought the property for plaintiff. Held, that the evidence did not show that defendant was employed by plaintiff so as to make him liable for the difference between the price at which the owner was willing to sell and the price asked. Lazarus v. Sands, 27 N. Y. S. 885, 33 N. Y. S. 855, 7 Misc. 282, 12 Misc. 575. See also Sec. 25.

Under a contract empowering a real estate broker to sell property for a certain sum, and providing that he should have as commissions all that he could get for the property above the price named, he was entitled to commissions only in the event of procuring a consummation of the sale, and not on procuring the execution of a contract of sale which was never performed. Munroe v. Taylor, 191 Mass. 483, 78 N. E. 106; Murphy v. W. & W. Live Stock Co., 189 P. 857, - Wyo. Sup. - . See also Sec. 503.

The owner of land agreed to pay a broker five per cent. commission if he found a purchaser who would pay him $3,000; thereafter the owner went away, but before leaving told the broker to consult C, and deal with him in the owner's place; subsequently C authorized a sale for $3,000 net to the owner, agreeing that the broker might have anything above that; the owner was informed of a sale made for $3,500, the contract calling for a good title, but refused to execute a proper deed. Held, that the broker was entitled to recover $500. Foster v. Taylor, 44 Wash. 313, 27 Pac. 358; Chesbrough v. Vizard Inv. Co., 160 S. W. 725, 156 Ky. 149; McKibben v. Wilson, 182 P. 638, - Kan. Sup. - .

Where a broker agreed with the owner of land to sell it, and that all above a certain price should be divided between them, and advised her to sell below the price named after a certain time, on the ground that the lands were not worth more, and effected a sale after the death of the owner for her executor at a price which left nothing, under the agreement with the decedent, to be divided, a claim against the executor for commissions could not be allowed. In re French's Est., 101 N. Y. S. 734. 51 Misc. 457.

Where an owner promised and agreed to pay a broker as a commission for procuring a tenant, " all you get above $2,000 per year," and the broker rents the premises for five years at an annual rental of $2,200, he was entitled to the excess over $2,000 each year during the life of the lease, and not merely for one year. Goldstein v. D'Arcy, 201 Mass. 312, 87 N. E. 584. See also Sec. 212. Compare Sec. 207.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser of real estate, to receive as commissions any sum in excess of $45 per acre, can not recover commissions, where the owner sold the land at $45 per acre, in the absence of a showing that the sale was made in fraud of the broker's rights, though he claimed that he could have sold for $50 per acre. Cook v. Whiting (Iowa Sup. '09), 122 N.W. 835.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser willing to pay $16,000 net, for a commission of whatever was obtained in excess of that sum, who procured a purchaser willing to pay $16,500, on the condition that the owner pay to a third person as purchaser's agent, for his compensation in the transaction, two and one-half per cent. thereof, did not comply with the contract of employment and could not recover commissions. Slayback v. Wetzel (Mo. App. '09), 123 S. W. 982.

Broker entitled to excess as commission on finding a purchaser ready, able and willing so to do. Hale v. Taylor, 126 S. W. 755, 140 Mo. App. 692; Davis-Fisher Co. v. Hall, 148 N. W. 713, 182 Mich. 574, L. E. A. 1915 A, 1224.

A real estate broker's obligation was fully performed when he procured from a prospective purchaser an enforceable contract to purchase at the agreed price, and it was no concern of the owner, who agreed that the broker should receive all over that amount, that the excess was in the form of fruit that the purchaser agreed should go to the broker rather than money. Sill v. Ceschi. 140 P. 949, 167 Cal. 698.

Where an owner of land agreed with a broker that the latter might sell for a given sum net, such agreement authorized the broker to retain all the proceeds above that sum as a commission, but does not entitle him to any commission unless an actual sale is made. Noyes v. Caldwell, 104 N. E. 595, 216 Mass. 525.

Where a broker is employed to sell real estate at a stipulated net price, and on certain terms, with an understanding that he shall have all in excess of the net price for his compensation, he is at liberty to enter into a contract to sell the premises with other property for a gross consideration in excess of the owner's net price, provided the proposed purchaser is willing and able to purchase at the price and on the stipulated terms, though a part of the consideration in excess of that which was to be paid to the owner consists of stock in a corporation. Smith v. Mellen, 133 N. W. 566, 116 Minn. 198.

A broker procuring a purchaser for property subsequently condemned, for a sum in excess of that he was authorized to sell it for, can recover his agreed commission. Tyler v. Seller, 136 N. Y. Sup. 394, 76 Misc. Rep. 185.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser for compensation of any sum in excess of price fixed by the principal; held, not to forfeit compensation because he became interested with the purchaser in purchasing the land. Martineau v. Hanson, 155 P. 432, 47 Utah,. 549.

Where a broker is given the sale of land at a net price to the owner, it is necessary, to recover substantial damages, that the customer furnished was able, ready and willing to buy at a certain advanced price, although vendor, by his acts, released him from any obligation to produce a customer. Shapiro v. Benenson, 167 N. Y. Sup. 1004, 181 App. Div. 19.

Defendants' general agent S, being authorized by them to sell for $23,000 and retain as compensation any amount received in excess of $23,000, and who, having employed plaintiff to find a customer, S and plaintiff to divide any such excess, the fact that plaintiff was to receive a commission from G, obtained as a customer after refusing a price of $30,000, and in not affecting defendants, did not deprive him of right to recover his commission from them. Springstein v. Lewis, 259 E. 518.