(1) Agreement between brokers and a prospective purchaser, by which he employed the brokers to procure a buyer from him at an increased price, made subsequent to the original employment; held, admissible under a general denial. Dickinson v. Ty-sen, 103 N. E. 703, 209 N. Y. 395, rev. judg., 132 N. Y. Sup. 1126, 148 App. Div. 894.

(2) In an action by a broker for commissions in procuring a purchaser, evidence of the length of time covered by the broker's correspondence with the landowner is properly admitted. Alexander v. Smith, 61 S. 68, 180 Ala. 541.

(3) Evidence held admissible to show the meaning of the phrase "it is closed," in a real estate broker's contract, which entitled him to commission only in case the sale was closed. Nutting & Co. v. Kennedy, 85 S. E. 767, 16 Ga. App. 560.

(4) In an action by a real estate broker for commissions on a sale of land alleged to have been made by agreement with the owner, evidence of plaintiff that he had listed the land on his books is admissible. Wright v. Olson, 191 I11. App. 272.

(5) In an action for procuring a purchaser for land, evidence was admissible by the proposed purchaser that when he told the seller's agent that he would buy if a certain other person did not, he was willing at that time, and executed a written contract to purchase on that condition. Beomer v. Stuber, 145 N. W. 936, 164 Iowa, 309.

(6) In an action by a broker for commissions, evidence that the purchaser was not influenced by the broker in making the purchase held admissible. Howard v. Street, 93 A. 923, 125 Md. 289.

(7) In a suit by one broker against another, who had charge of his work and made a sale; held, that plaintiff might show the amount which defendant received. Debo v. Gamble, 152 N. W. 979, 186 Mich. 583.

(8) Where, in an action for commissions, there is a contra-versy as to the listing agreement and as to whether plaintiffs efforts to make a sale were communicated to the owner, evidence of such efforts is competent. Wright v. Waite, 148 N. W. 50, 126 Minn. 115.

(9) Where defendants contracted to pay intestate a specified sum on a sale of certain land for intestate's services, evidence of the wife of the landowner that when papers were prepared for the sale of the sixth interest, it was agreed that no commissions should be paid on account of that deal, was admissible. Smith v. Crane, 154 S. W. 857, 169 Mo. App. 695.

(10) In an action for a broker's commission, evidence that the broker's manager had made an appointment by telephone for the seller to meet the buyer in another city was admissible. National Milling Co. v. Kirby, 94 A. 149, - E. I. Sup. - .

(11) In a broker's action for commissions, testimony regarding the transaction, mentioned in a letter which, if it related to the transaction in question, tended to show an abandonment by the broker of his efforts to make a sale; held, wrongly excluded. Hack-ett v. Straw, 144 N. W. 655, 33 S. D. 17.

(12) In an action by a broker for commissions, certain evidence held admissible to show that a sale could not be made on the designated date. Longworth v. Stevens, 145 S. W. 257, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(13) Under allegation in an answer in an action for a broker's commission, that if plaintiff was instrumental in effecting the sale, his services were purely voluntary and without promise of compensation, evidence was admissible that plaintiff and defendant were closely related, so as to raise the presumption that the services were gratuitous. Carl v. Wolcott, 156 S. W. 334, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(14) Where, in an action for broker's services in selling land during 1910, defendant claimed termination of contract for plaintiff's lack of diligence, evidence of notice to plaintiff by defendant's president, or another at his direction, that the contract was terminated, was admissible. Putnam Land & Dev. Co. v. Elser, 159 S. W. 190, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(15) In an action for commissions on a sale of land under an alleged verbal agreement, defendant's testimony that he understood the broker was buying the property, and expected to resell it, improperly excluded. Cardozo v. Middle Atlantic Emi. Co., 82 S. E. 80,'116 Va. 342.

(16) Where a real estate broker, suing for commissions, claimed that the customer produced was ready, able and willing to buy on the conditions fixed by defendants, who sought to show the broker's knowledge of an additional condition, with which the customer in question and the broker's customer refused to comply, it was error to exclude testimony showing all the negotiations with both customers in the broker's presence, and the proposed contracts with the customers submitted to them by defendants during such negotiations. Arnold v. Schmeidler, 129 N. Y. Sup. 408, 144 App. Div. 420.

(17) In a broker's action for commissions for an exchange of land for a stock of goods, evidence as to the nature of the exchange contract and the value of the goods, and as to the reasons for the failure to complete the exchange, was relevant and competent. Duke v. Oraham, 143 N. W. 817, 163 Iowa, 272.

(18) In an action for broker's commissions, letters exchanged between the owner and the purchaser; held, admissible to show that the owner himself procured the purchaser. Stafford v. Rainey, 149 P. 611, 27 Cal. App. 224.

(19) A letter written to a purchaser by defendant's attorneys, on her behalf, and stating that they were willing to conclude the matter, evidence held admissible. Swift v. Moore, 82 S. E. 914, 15 Ga. App. 254.

(20) A telegram sent by the broker to the joint owner who had listed the land, asserting the broker's claim for commission, was properly admitted upon a showing of knowledge of the other joint owners of the broker's claims, there being other evidence that all the owners knew of the telegram. Webb v. Harding, 159 S. W. 1029, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(21) Evidence that defendant made no other objections to the contract of sale denied than those enumerated by him at that time was admissible. J. N. Dunlop & Co. v. Anderson, 133 N. W. 910.