An exclusive agency, supported by a sufficient consideration, entitles a broker to commissions on a sale made by the principal (if excluded) or through the efforts of another broker during the time specified. Gregory v. Bonney, 135 Cal. 589, 67 P. 1038; Crane v. McCormick, 92 Cal. 176, 28 P. 222; Long v. Herr, 10 Colo. 380, 15 P. 802; Metcalf v. Kent, 104 Iowa, 487, 73 N. W. 1037; Lipscomb v. Cole, 81 Mo. App. 53; Levy v. Bothe, 17 Misc. 402, 39 N. Y. S. 1057; Schultz v. Griffin, 5 Misc. 499, 26 N. Y. S. 713; Emberson v. Dean, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 236; Powell v. Anderson, 15 Daly, 219, 4 N. Y. S. 706; Owens v. Wehrle, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 536; Sylvester v. Johnson, 110 Tenn. 392, 75 S. W. 923; Stringfellow v. Powers, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 199, 23 S. W. 313; Carle v. Parent (Montreal L. R.), 5 Q. B. 451; Moses v. Bierland, 31 N. Y. 462; James H. Button Co. v. Hammon, 170 S. W. 1186, 161 Ky. 498; Murphy v. Sawyer & Wurford, 153 S. W. 991, 152 Ky. 645; Geo. J. Wanstrath B. E. Co. v. Wenz, 170 S. W. 345, 185 Mo. App. 162; Dresser v. Gilbert, 79 A. 1043, 81 N. J. Law, 358; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Johnson, 160 S. W. 535, 177 Mo. App. 503; Kruse v. Ferber, 103 A. 409, - N. J. Sup. -; Howard & Brown Realty Co. v. Barnett, 206 S. W. 417,

- Mo. App. -; Stevenson Co. v. Oppenheimer, 101 A. 88, - N. J. Sup. -; Popplewell v. Buchanan, 204 S. W. 874, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Ail. Coast Realty Co. v. Townsend, 98 S. E. 684,

- Va. Sup. - .

Where a broker was given exclusive authority to sell property until a certain date, and during such time tried to make a sale with a certain buyer, but failed and abandoned his efforts, the owner was not liable for commission upon sale to such buyer effected after the broker's exclusive contract had expired, the broker not having been the procuring cause of the sale. Rosenfield v. Wall, 109 A. 409, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where a broker is given the exclusive agency, but not inhibiting the principal from selling, the contract is not violated by a sale by the principal to one not a customer of the broker. English v. Wm. George Butt. Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 117 S. W. 996; Waterman v. Boltinghouse, 82 Cal. 659, 23 P. 195; Ingold v. Symonds, 125 Iowa, 82, 99 N. W. 713; Johnson v. Buchanan (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 875; Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 535, 43 N. W. 569; Wylie v. Marine Nat Bk., 61 N. Y. 415; Golden Gate Packing Co. v. Mine, 55 Cal. 606; Wright v. Waite, 148 N. W. 50, 126 Minn. 115; Massey v. Southern Land Co., 174 S. W. 531, 117 Ark. 655; McCombs v. Moss, 181 S. W. 907, 121 Ark. 503; Cisel Talbott & Co. v. Hayden, 41 App. D. C. 477; Bryant v. Palmer, 171 I11. App. 213; Smith v. Preiss, 136 N. W. 7, 117 Minn. 392; Ann. Cas. 1913 D, 820; Greene v. Am. Malting Co., 140 N. W. 1130, 153 Wis. 216; Snook v. Page, 155 P. 107, 29 Cal. App. 246; Morris v. Clark, 80 S. 406, - Ala. Sup. -; Harris & White v. Stone, 207 S. W. 443, - Ark. Sup. -; Armstrong v. Lounsberry, Simmons & Co., 173 N. W. 890, - Iowa Sup. -; Alley v. Griffen, 215 S. W. 479, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Gammell v. Cox, 219 S. W. 745, - Ark. Sup. -; Chas. E. Walters Co. v. Hahn, 178 N. W. 448, - S. Dak. Sup. -; Stmts v. Mengelsen, 180 N. W. 78, - Neb. Sup. - . A contract of agency will not be construed to be exclusive, unless established expressly or by clear implication. Crook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395, 22 S. 540; White v. Benton, 121 Iowa, 354, 96 N. W. 876; Kidman v. Howard, 18 S. Dak. 161, 99 N. W. 1104; Talbot v. Mattox, Dawson & Posey Realty Co., 109 P. 128, 26 Okl. 298; Bitch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup. -; Mc-Fadden v. Crisler, 213 S. W. 912, - Tenn. Sup. -; Faith v. Meisetschlager, 187 P. 61, - Cal. App. - .

It was agreed between the owner of land and a broker, that the broker should have the "exclusive agency" for the sale of the land for a fixed period at a fixed price, and that the broker should give attention to the sale of the land, have the same examined and advertised, and should report promptly all sales, etc. The land aggregated over 51,000 acres, and the timber thereon was the most valuable part. Held, That the words "exclusive agency" deprived the owner of the right to sell the premises, and a sale by him of the timber before the expiration of the fixed period was a breach of the contract. Hunter v. Wenatchee Land Co. 97 P. 494, 50 Wash. 438. (This is contrary to the general doctrine which requires the exclusive right to the agent to deprive the owner of the right to sell.)

A company was employed to sell defendant's property under a contract giving it the sole agency for the sale of the property for three months from the date of the contract, and thereafter until notified by defendant in writing of the withdrawal of the property from sale, and defendant further agreed to pay the company the agreed commission if the property was sold during the term of the contract, whether sold by the company or by some one else. Held, That the company would be entitled to the specified commission on the sale taking place within three months, regardless of any attempted revocation by the principal. Novakovich v. Union Trust Co. (89 Ark. 412), 117 S. W. 246.

A broker is not entitled to commission on a sale by a principal, notwithstanding he is given the exclusive right to sell, unless it is also agreed that he shall receive a commission whether the sale be effected by him, by the principal, or some third person. Turner v. Baker, 225 Pa. 359, 74 A. 172. (Unless the principal agrees to pay commissions in case of sale by him or another broker, the broker prejudiced has a right of action for breach of the contract.) An owner of property contracted with a broker to make a sale of property, and that in case of a sale thereof, within one year, he would pay a commission. Held, That the sale referred to was one consummated by the broker or brought about by him, he having found a purchaser and brought the owner and purchaser together, and did not give the broker the exclusive right of sale to the exclusion of the owner himself, and he was not entitled to a commission upon a sale made by the owner. Parkhurst v. Tyron, 119 N. Y. S. 184.

A broker's acceptance of owner's agreement that broker shall have exclusive agency for sale of land, and his services thereunder supplies the element of mutuality, and makes it a binding obligation on both. Braniff v. Baier, 165 P. 816, 101 Kan. 117.

Where a real estate owner signed an agreement giving an exclusive agency to sell, and the broker, though not signing it, acted thereon, it became binding. Howard & Brown Realty Co. v. Barnett, 206 S. W. 417, - Mo. App. - .

Under a contract allowing a broker a fixed commission on all sales of land within five years, whether made by him or not, or breach of the other, he was properly allowed commission on all sales made within that period, though they were procured by the combined efforts of nearly all the real estate brokers in the city. Hagan v. Nashville Trust Co., 136 S. W. 993, 124 Tenn. 93.

A broker is not entitled to a commission on a sale by his principal, notwithstanding he is given the exclusive right to sell, unless it is also agreed that he shall receive commission whether the sale be effected by him, by the principal, or some third person. Bomar v. Munn, 158 S. W. 1186, - Tex. Civ. App. - .