If the broker merely brings together two parties who desire to exchange or sell their lands, and his employment then ends, and the parties themselves settle the terms of the transaction, he is a mere middleman, and may recover from each party, if each has agreed to pay him. Clark v. Allen, 125 Cal. 276, 57 P. 985; Green v. Robertson, 64 Cal. 75; Manders v. Croft, 3 Colo. App. 236, 32 P. 836; Cox v. Haun, 127 Ind. 325, 26 N. E. 822; Muller v. Kutzleb, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 253; Dolph v. Wain-scott, 14 Ky. L. R. (abst.) 304: Montrose v. Eddy, 94 Mich. 100, 53 N. W. 916; Ranney v. Donovan, 78 Mich. 318, 44 N. W. 276; Child v. Ptomey, 17 Mont. 502, 43 P. 714; Norton v. Genesse Nat. Sav., etc., Ass'n, 68 N. Y. S. 32, 57 A. D. 520; Knaus v. Gottfried Krueger Brewing Co., 142 N. Y. 70, 36 N. E. 867; Siegel v. Gould, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 177; Pollatschiek v. Goodwin, 40 N. Y. S. 682, 17 Misc. 587, 75 St. 86; Bonwell v. Auld, 29 N. Y. S. 15, 9 Misc. 65; Jarvis v. Schaefer, 105 N. Y. 289, 11 N. E. 634; Bolheimer v. Richardt, 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 414; Haviland v. Price, 26 N. Y. S. 757, 6 Misc. 372; Collins v. Fowler, 8 Mo. App. 588; Orton v. Schofield, 61 Wis. 382; McClure v. Luke, 154 Fed. 647; Bass v. Talbert (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 112 S. W. 1077; Ross v. Carr (N. M. Sup. '09), 103 P. 307; Grasinger v. Lucas (S. D. Sup. '09), 123 N. W.

77; Sternberger v. Young (N. J. Eq. '10), 75 A. 807. See also Secs. 557, 578.

Real estate brokers are "middlemen" in respect to a sale of property only where they merely bring the parties together to deal for themselves, standing indifferently between them, they having undertaken to act as agent for neither. Geddes v. Van Rhee, 148 N. W. 549, 126 Minn. 517.

A broker, when acting as a middleman, simply undertakes to bring the parties together, and does not negotiate for either, and may make a contract to receive a commission from both, with or without the other's consent. Clopton v. Godfrey, 139 K. W. 893, 158 Iowa, 376; Silberkraus v. Winnie, 142 N. Y. Supp. 887, 158 App. Div. 50; Langford v. Issenhuth, 134 K W. 889, 28 S. D. 451; Jordan v. Anderson, 155 K W. 769, 36 S. D. 508; Leake v. Scaief, 140 S. W. 814, - Tex. Civ. App. -; T. A. Hill & Son v. Patton & Schwartz, 160 S. W. 1155, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Peters v. Riley, 81 S. E. 530, 73 W. Va. 785; Litis v. Morse, 130 N. W. 460, 145 Wis. 472; King v. Reed, 141 P. 41, 24 Cal. App. 229.

A party claiming commissions who was not a real estate broker, but a mere middleman, in view of his undertaking being to obtain a certain price specified by the owner, was under no obligation to undertake to obtain a higher price, and even if, without the knowledge of the owner, he arranged to receive a commission from both sides, he was, notwithstanding, entitled to recover his compensation for effecting the transaction. Jones v. Mo. Lumber & Mining Co., 166 I11. App. 266.

One employed merely to bring together persons desirous to exchange property, or sell and buy, is a "middleman," agent for neither, and entitled to receive commissions from both. Tracey v. Blake, 118 N. E. 271, 229. Mass. 57.

Where a real estate broker acts as middleman in bringing together two parties, and has made no agreement as to commissions, he is entitled to receive a commission from the purchaser, though he has already received one equal to the amount claimed from the seller subsequent to the completion of the transaction. Spiess v. Ford, 71 Pa. Super. Ct. 210.

Quaere? Whether one who acts as middleman, merely bringing the vendor and vendee together to make their own contract, without aid, advice to or interference on behalf of, either, may recover compensation from both, without knowledge by one of such arrangement with the other. Harten v. Loeffler, 31 App. D. C. 362. Compare Sec. 578.