Ordinarily a broker is not entitled to commissions for performing services which by the local custom are rendered gratuitously. Courey v. Hoover, 10 La. Ann. 437. If a broker employed to negotiate a loan abandons the employment he is not entitled to a commission on the transaction being afterwards effected. Everett v. Farrel, 11 Ind. App. 185, 38 N. E. 872; Bouscher v. Larkens, 32 N. Y. S. 305, 84 Hun, 288; Holley v. Townsend, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 34. See also Sec. 292.

An agency to buy, sell exchange or lease property is revocable at any time before sale, unless coupled with an interest or given for a valuable consideration, and after his authority has been withdrawn a broker is not entitled to compensation for finding a purchaser. Brown v. Pfau, 38 Cal. 550; Young v.

Trainer, 158 I11. 428, 42 N. E. 139; Wilson v. Dyer, 12 Ind. App. 320, 39 N. E. 163; Kavamaugh v. Ballard, 21 Ky. L. R. 1683, 56 S. W. 159; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 186 Mass. 7, 70 N. E. 1033, 179 Mass. 474, 61 N. E. 37, 55 L. R. A. 77, 66 L. R. A. 982; West v. Dennis, 128 Mich. 11, 87 N. W. 95; Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521, 88 N. W. 15; Kesterson v. Chauvrant (Mo. App. '02), 70 S. W. 1091; Green v. Wright, 36 Mo. App. 298; Vincent v. Woodland Oil Co., 165 Pa. St. 402, 30 A. 991.

Where an agent's authority to sell lands is revoked, and the owner in good faith thereafter sells upon less favorable terms to one who had declined to purchase from the agent, such agent is not entitled to commissions. Bailey v. Smith, 103 Ala. 641, 15 S. 900; Uphof v. Ulrich, 2 I11. App. 399; Blodgett v. Sioux City, etc., B. Co., 63 Iowa, 606, 19 N. W. 799; Gillett v. Corum, 5 Kan. 608; Stedman v. Richardson, 100 Ky. 79, 37 S. W. 259, 18 Ky. L. R. 567; Beeler v. Cresswell, 3 Md. 196; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 179 Mass. 474, 61 N. E. 37, 55 L. R. A. 77; Alden v. Earle, 4 N. Y. S. 548, 56 Super. Ct. 366; Mallonee v. Young, 119 N. C. 549, 26 S. E. 141; Neal v. Lehman, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 34 S. W. 153; Corse v. Kelly (Kan. Sup. '09), 101 P. 1016. 1016; Ernst v. Ganahl, 137 P. 256, 166 Cal. 493.

A broker who fails to procure a license to carry on his business, in most of the localities where that is required by law, can not recover commissions for acting as such. Whitfield v. Ruling, 50 I11. App. 179; Eckert v. Collot, 46 I11. App. 361; Richardson v. Brix, 94 Iowa, 626; 63 N. W. 325; Young v. Denning, 52 Kan. 629, 35 P. 207; Buckley v. Humason, 50 Minn. 195, 52 N. W. 385; Johnson v. Hidings, 103 Pa. St. 498; Stevenson v. Eumg, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230; Wicks v. Carlisle, 12 Okla. 337, 72 P. 377; Saule v. Ryan (Tenn. Ch. App. '99), 53 S. W. 977; Costello v. Goldbeck, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 158.

Where a sub-agent conceals from the principal the fact that he is acting for the agent, the latter can not recover commissions. Mullen v. Bowen, 22 Ind. App. 294, 53 N. E. 790.

If a broker employed to sell property, buys it for himself, and does this without the consent of his principal, he is not entitled to commissions. Finnerty v. Fritz, 5 Colo. 174; Hammond v. Bookwalter, 12 Ind. App. 177, 39 N. E. 872; Jansen v. Williams, 36 Neb. 869, 55 N. W. 279, 20 L. R. A. 207; Powers v. Black, 159 Pa. St. 153, 28 A. 133; Miller v. Holland, 1 Weekly Notes Cas. (Pa.) 36; Ryan v. Kahler (Tex. Civ. App. '98), 46 S. W. 71.

All agreements between a real estate agent or broker and a proposed purchaser touching the subject matter of his employment which are not disclosed to his principal should be scrutinized closely, and if not found compatible with entire integrity and good faith toward his principal, they will defeat the agent's claim for commissions from his principal. Hobart v. Sherburne, 66 Minn. 171, 68 N. W. 841.

One employing a broker to sell property, without giving to him the exclusive right to sell, may negotiate a sale himself, and, if he does so without the agency of the broker, and before the latter has procured a purchaser, he is not liable to the broker for commissions, although the broker produced a purchaser after a sale by the owner. Hill v. Jeff, 55 Ark. 574, 18 S. W. 1047; Waterman v. Boltinghouse, 82 Cal. 659, 23 P. 195; Dolan v. Scanlan, 57 Cal. 261; Doonan v. Ives, 73 Gra. 295; Curtis v. Wagner, 98 I11. App. 345; Stewart v. Murray, 92 Ind. 543; Buck v. Hogeboom, 125 Iowa, 526, 90 N. W. 635; McClave v. Paine, 49 N. Y. 561; Brown v. Snyder, 68 N. Y. S. 224, 57 App. Div. 413; Chilton v. Butler, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 150; Scherer v. Colwell, 87 N. Y. S. 490, 43 Misc. 390; Harris v. Rogers, 15 N. Y. St. 396; Evans v. Gay, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 74 S. W. 575. See also Secs. 142, 449.

Where a broker is instructed by his principal to ascertain the actual rentals of a property sought in exchange, and the agent procures an erroneous statement thereof, although believing it to be true, where the principal relies on it and he contracts to exchange the property, but rescinds the contract on learning the facts, the broker is not entitled to compensation. Marcus v. Blooming dale, 71 N. Y. S. 374, 63 App. Div. 227.

A broker who is unsuccessful in effecting a transaction subject to the approval of his principal, is not entitled to a commission upon a sale subsequently made by another broker. Goin v. Hess, 102 Iowa, 140, 71 N. W. 218; Latshaw v. Moore, 53 Kan. 234, 36 P. 342; Walton v. N. O., etc., R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 398; Ward v. Fletcher, 124 Mass. 224; Donville v. Comstock, 110 Mich. 693, 69 N. W. 79; Thuner v. Kanter, 102 Mich. 59,

60 N. W. 299; Wilson v. Alexander (Tex. Sup. '92), 18 S. W. 1057.

Where a broker found a customer to whom the owner sold the property after the termination of the employment, the broker was not entitled to a commission, where the broker found the customer previous to his employment, and the negotiations for the sale were conducted without his aid. Cushman v. Gori, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 356. See also Secs. 19, 21, 169, 454.

Where a broker is, by agreement, to receive commissions for procuring a purchaser for land only on condition that a sale is made to a certain purchaser, he can not recover if a sale to such purchaser is not consummated, owing to the fault of either of the parties. Lyle v. Univ. Land, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '95), 30 S. W. 723.