Where the owner of property placed it with a real estate broker for sale, who accordingly advertised it, and the purchaser thus derived information that the property was for sale, and afterwards negotiated directly with the owner and purchased the property, the broker was entitled to his commissions. Kilbourn v. King, 6 D. C. 310; Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mq. 249; Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150; Anderson v. Cox, 16 Neb. 10, 20 N. W. 10; Kiernun v. Bloom, 86 N. Y. S. 899, 91 App. Div. 429; Jackson v. Carrick, 25 Weekly Notes Cas. (Pa.) 132. There is authority to support the contrary doctrine. Charlton v. Wood, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 19.

Where a broker employed to sell land negotiates unsuccessfully with another broker, and the latter subsequently obtains authority from the principal under which he effects a sale, the fact that the broker after the sale was promised by the purchaser an interest in the profits of the land, in consideration that he should look after it, and try to effect a sale at an increased price, did not constitute him a purchaser so as to entitle the first broker employed to the commission. Donville v. Comstock, 110 Mich. 693, 69 N. W. 79.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant to sell certain premises, and procured a purchaser at .$7,000, to be paid by the assumption of a first mortgage for $3,500, $2,500 in cash, and the giving of a second mortgage for $1,000, with interest at five per cent.; this offer was accepted and a written contract prepared, which provided that the $1,000 should be evidenced by a demand note; the purchaser declined to perform unless given six months within which to pay the latter amount; the owner refused to extend the credit longer than sixty days: it was held that under his agreement the purchaser was entitled to a reasonable time within which to pay such sum, and as his demand for six months was reasonable, plaintiff was entitled to commissions for the sale. Wendle v. Palmer, 77 Conn. 12, 58 A. 12.

If the principal enters into a contract with the purchaser furnished by the broker, the principal will be held to have favorably determined the purchaser's responsibility and the commission is due, although the purchaser proves irresponsible. Stievel v. Lally, 89 Ark. 195, 115 S. W. 1134; Wray v. Carpenter, 16 Colo. 271, 27 P. 248; Wright v. Brown, 68 Mo. App. 577;.Brady v. Foster, 75 N. Y. S. 994, 72 App. Div. 416; Sobaje v. Schubert, 174 P. 364, - Cal. App. - . Compare Butler v. Baker, 17 R. I. 582, 23 A. 1019.

As a slaughter house erected on the lot purchased is not shown to be a nuisance, and there is nothing in the letter or spirit of the contract to prevent the use of the lot for that purpose, defendant can not resist plaintiff's claim for commissions, because the lot is so used. Kavanomgh v. Ballard, 21 Ky. L. R. 1683, 56 S. W. 159.

Where W. agrees, for a valuable consideration, to pay to a broker a certain sum in case either W. or G. should "sell" the described premises, a bargain made by W., unaided by G., to sell the land, and a conveyance accordingly by himself and wife, was a sale within the meaning of the contract. Goward v. Waters, 98 Mass. 596.

An agent for the sale and management of the estates of absent proprietors was held to be entitled to ten per cent. on all collections made by him and remitted, and to a per diem allowance for the days spent by him in the management of the estate. West N. J. Society v. .Morris, Peters (U. S. C. C), 59.

Under a contract by which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a specified commission if he (defendant) succeeded in selling his land on certain terms to a person whom plaintiff had brought to him, plaintiff is entitled to the commission, whether the subsequent sale to that person was effected through plaintiff's efforts, or direct by defendant, or through the efforts of some third person. Gouge v. Hoyt, 127 Iowa, 340, 101 N. W. 463.

Under a contract to pay plaintiff a certain commission on a sale of defendant's farm, or any part of it, at a certain price accepted by defendant, where plaintiff offered the farm to a party who subsequently bought it through another agency, plaintiff was not bound to actually make a sale to entitle him to a commission, since the contract merely implied an employment to assist in making a sale. Terry v. Reynolds, I11 Wis. 122, 86 N. W. 557.

A Frenchman residing in Iowa wrote to his neighbor, also a Frenchman and a land broker, who had gone on a visit to France, to procure him a purchaser for his farm at $4,000, for which he would allow him $200 brokerage. The broker was approached a year later by a Frenchman in New York who desired to purchase a farm. The broker took him to Iowa, showed him the farm in question, told the seller to be reasonable in his terms, and afterwards remarked to a witness that he had fetched the seller to terms. The purchaser took the land at $4,000. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to show that the broker was the agent of the buyer, and not of the seller, and that he was entitled to the agreed compensation of $200. Dubois v. Dubois, 54 Iowa, 216, 6 N. W. 261.

An agreement by brokers affecting an exchange of lands that the owner of one piece shall pay no commissions until they have placed mortgages on the other piece, is merely a condition, and the commission is one on the exchange, and not the result of the distinct transaction. Parker v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 391, 53 N. E. 913.

Where a broker, having hut a limited time within which to effect a sale, failed to do so within that time, and the principal declined to be further bound; and subsequently, the broker sought to have him again consent to make the sale, and to induce him to do so agreed to charge less commissions than those contemplated, and thus procured the seller to consummate a sale, the commissions of the broker are to he charged under the new contract and not that originally made. Phinzy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479, 59 S. E. 259.

A broker who accomplishes the purposes of his agency in accordance with his instructions earns his compensation. Harvey v. Hamilton, 155 I11. 377, 40 N. E. 592; Slotboom v. Simpson Lumber Co., 136 P. 641, 67 Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 339, den. re., 115 P. 889, 67 Or. 516.

Broker entitled to commission for purchaser procured by broker's sub-agent with owner's knowledge. Bound v. Simkins, 151 S. W. 572; Strickland v. Fairfax, 65 S. E. 177, 110 Va. 142; Tilton v. James L. Gates Land Co., 121 N. W. 331, 140 Wis. 197.

Where P. obtained a lease of certain land from defendant for the benefit of an undisclosed corporation, of which he was manager and for which he was acting, defendant's want of knowledge of the corporation was no bar to its subsequent right to recover commissions for the alleged sale of land through its efforts. Satisfaction Title & Inv. Co. v. York, 131 P. 444, 54 Colo. 566.

The mere fact that plaintiff urged B. to look at defendant's farm, concerning which he already had full knowledge, did not constitute a "showing" of the farm to B. within the provisions of the contract obligating defendant to pay commissions in case of a sale to any person to whom plaintiff had shown the land. Winthrop Land Co. v. Utley, 125 N. W. 164, 146 Iowa, 310.

Where plaintiffs were engaged to visit various towns and furnish defendants with information in regard to and to assist them in procuring lots to be platted, the agency did not require plaintiffs to make purchases or bring defendants into direct communication with the owners of the land found. J. A. Dean & Son v. Goodrich, 140 N. W. 435, 160 Iowa, 98.

Where defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs half the commission on a sale of any East Texas land to parties sent to defendant by plaintiffs, it was not necessary, to entitle plaintiffs to recover commission, that the purchaser sent to defendant intended to purchase a particular tract. Trice & Ludolph v. Cone, 163 S. W. 587, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where broker sells lands on terms different from those in list agreement, the owner assenting to the sale on understanding that commission shall be different from that first agreed on, no commission, other than that fixed by new agreement, is recoverable. Paulson v. Reeds, 167 N. W. 371, - N. D. Sup. - .

Where broker's commission is dependent upon certain conditions or contingencies, as upon a consummation of sale, or payment of the purchase price or a specified part thereof, or a net price to the owner, these stipulations will govern, and a fulfillment of the prescribed conditions is generally essential to the right of recovery of compensation. Williamson R. E. Co. v. Sasser, 103 S. E. 73, - N. C. Sup. - .