Where letters from the owner of land to a real estate broker named terms of sale, and told the broker if he could effect sales the owner would be glad, but that the right to refuse offers was reserved, that the broker might wire if he found a customer at the price named, and he could have the land and the broker his commission, it was held that where the language was ambiguous, the ambiguity must be taken most strongly against the owner, especially where third persons have acted thereunder, and the broker having found persons ready to purchase on the terms named, was entitled to his commissions, although the owner refused to sell. Hopwood v. Corbin, 63 Iowa, 218, 18 N. W. 911; Wright Land & Inv. Go. v. Even, 186 P. 681, - Mont. Sup. - .

Where a broker produced a customer, and to whom principal agreed to sell, the mere fact that the contract contained no express promise to purchase did not make it so lacking in mutuality that the broker could recover no commission, reciprocal obligation of purchase being implied. Warmack v. Perkins, 201 S. W. 120, - Ark. Sup. - .

Sec. 50 Banks.

The cashier of a bank having implied authority, as its executive officer, to contract for the disposal of lands acquired by the bank in the collection of its credits, will bind the bank by his contract to pay commissions for the disposal of lands placed 106 in the hands of a broker, but which through mistake in identity the bank does not own. Arnold v. Nat. Bk. of Waupaca, 126 Wis. 362, 105 N. W. 828, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 580.

Where a real estate agent furnished a purchaser who was able and willing to buy, and who entered into a contract providing that he should deposit $500, which should be returned if any defect existed in the title which the seller could not cure in thirty days, and the contract failed of consummation solely because there was such a defect, the fact that the check which was deposited according to the contract was on a bank from which the prospective buyer withdrew his funds, and the check was afterward refused, did not preclude the agent from recovering his commissions. Perkins v. Kimberlin, 110 Mo. App. 661, 85 S. W. 630.

Where a bank agrees to pay a real estate broker a commission on the sale of lands, it can not set up as a defense that, under the laws of the State in which the land is situated, a bank is prohibited from dealing in real estate, where it has availed itself of the benefits of the sale. Church v. Johnson, 93 Iowa, 544, 61 N. W. 916.

Where defendant, attorney for the president of a bank, engaged a broker to procure a purchaser for land belonging to the bank, title to which property had stood in the name of the attorney, as trustee, prior to a sheriff's sale made to clear the title, and the contract was the usual one, commission is earned where the broker procures a customer with whom defendant was willing to contract, regardless of the final outcome of the sale. Lieberman v. Colahan, 110 A. 246, - Pa. Super. - . Sec. 51. Consent.

If an agent employed to sell property buys it for himself, in an action for compensation the burden of proving that the principal had knowledge of the facts and consented to the sale rests on the agent. Jansen v. Williams, 36 Neb. 869, 55 N. W. 279, 20 L. R. A. 207; Grant v. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668.

If a broker is employed as the agent of either party so that that party relies on him to secure the best bargain possible, then the general rule forbidding double employment applies, and the broker can not recover commissions from both parties to the transaction. Bates v. Copeland, McArthur & M. (D. C.) 50; Lloyd v. Colston, 5 Bush (Ky.), 587; Raisin v. Clark, 41 Md. 158; Follansbee v. O'Reilly, 135 Mass. 80; Harwitz v. Pepper, 128 Mich. 688, 87 N. W. 1034; Friar v. Smith, 120 Mich, 411, 79 N. W. 633, 46 L. R, A. 229; Leathers v. Canfield, 117 Mich. 277, 75 N. W. 612, 45 L. R. A. 33; Scribner v. Collier, 40 Mich. 375; Dartt v. Somnesym, 86 Minn. 55, 90 N. W. 115; De Steiger v. Hollington, 17 Mo. App. 382; Pugsley v. Murray, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 245; Dunlap v. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y), 181; Watkins v. Consell, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 65; Brierly v. Connelly, 64 N. Y. S. 9, 31 Misc. 268; Norman v. Reuther, 54 N. Y. S. 152, 25 Misc. 161; Linderman v. McKenna, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 409; Meyer v. Hanchett, 43 Wis. 246; Single v. Russell, 80 A. 164, 114 Md. 418; Sumone v. Dereshinwicz, 74 A. 906, 82 Conn. 547; Jacobs v. Beyer, 125 N. Y. Sup. 597, 141 App. Div. 49; Siler v. Perkins, 140 S. W. 1060, 126 Tenn. 380, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232; King v. Reed, 141 P. 41, 24 Cal. App. 229; Clopton v. Meeves, 133 P. 907, 24 Idaho, 293; Moore v. Kelley, 162 S. W. 1034, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Leno v. Stewart, 95 A. 539, 89 Vt. 286, Ann. Cas. 1917 A, 509; Jauman v. Mc-Cusick, 137 P. 254, 166 Cal. 517; Shepherd-Teague Co. v. Hermann, 107 P. 622, 12 Cal. App. 394; Zimmerman v. Garvey, 71 A. 780, 81 Conn. 570; Neuman v. Friedman, 136 S. W. 251, 156 Mo. App. 142; Adams v. Boren, 194 S. W. 619, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Whittle v. Klipper, 165 N. W. 425, - Iowa Sup. -; Brown v.Hurb, 164 N. W. 386, - Mich. Sup. -; Yockum v. Cassett, 200 S. W. 582, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Dingman v. Boyle, 120 N. E. 487, - I11. Sup. - , rev. judg. 209 I11. App. 311; Blaschika v. Ferguson & Dyers, 208 S. W. 727, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Baker v. Greer, 208 S. W. 755, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Buck v. Woodson, 209 S. W. 344, - Tex. Civ. App. -; McCulley v. Rivers, 170 N. W. 24, 200 Mich. 417; Baum v. Kelley, 176 N. Y. Sup. 22; James E. Carlson, Inc. v. Babler, 174 N. W. 824, - Minn. Sup. -; Williams v. Knight Realty Co., 217 S. W. 755, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Gallway v. Galbreath, 187 P. 73, - Cal. App. -; Murphy v. Willis, 219 S. W. 776, - Ark. Sup. -; Hume v. Baggett & Baggett, 221 S. W. 1002, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Twiss v. Herbst, 111 A. 201, - Conn. Sup. -; Gardner v. Buschler, 111 A. 589, - Conn. Sup. - .

Unless they consent to his acting for both, either expressly or by clear implication. Alexander v. N. W. Chr. Univ., 57 Ind. 466; Scribner v. Collier, 40 Mich. 375; De Steiger v. Hollington, 17 Mo. App. 382; Rowe v. Stephens, 53 N. Y. 621; Geery v. Pollock, 44 N. Y. S. 673, 16 App. Div. 321; Abel v. Disbrow, 44 N. Y. S. 573, 15 App. Div. 536; Lansing v. Bliss, 33 N. Y. S. 310, 86 Hun. 205; Dunlap v. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 181; Whiting v. Saunders, 49 N. Y. S. 1016, 22 Misc. 539; Haviland v. Price, 26 N. Y. S. 757, 6 Misc. 372; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. C. 67, 40 S. E. 850; Maxwell v. West, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 302; Meyer v. Hanchett, 43 Wis. 246; Cass v. Tolbert (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 112 S. W. 1077; Minto v. Moore, 55 S. 542, 1 Ala. App. 556; Harten v. Laffler, 31 App. D. C. 362; Rineberger v. Wess-ner, 137 P. 969, 91 Kan. 303; Neuman v. Friedman, 136 S. W. 251, 156 Mo. 142; Hoffhines v. Thorson, 141 P. 253, 92 Kan. 605; McClure v. Clements, 143 S. W. 82, 161 Mo. App. 23; Levy v. Gross, 149 P. 237, 46 Okl. 626; Susee v. Neumann, 123 N. Y. Sup. 776, 67 Misc. Rep. 605; Byrne v. Jacobs, 162 S. W. 8, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Bauer v. Crow, 171 S. W. 296, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Stoats v. Weaver, 123 P. 666, 53 Cal. 25; Am. Sec. Inv. Co. v. Penney, 152 N. W. 771, 129 Minn. 369; Johnson v. Kurzenknabe, 182 I11. App. 159; Maddox v. Davis, 192 I11. App. 575; Maddox v. Harding, 135 N. W. - , 91 Neb. 292; Franck v. Blazier, 133 P. 800,, 66 Or. 377; Hunter v. Lyons, 144 S. W. 353, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Price v. Partridge, 139 P. 34, 78 Wash 362; Stapp v. Godfrey, 139 N. W. 893, 158 Iowa, 376; Goldsberg v. Thomas, 165 S. W. 1179, 178 Mo. App. 334; Fram v. McCarty, 168 S. W. 44„ - Tex. Civ. App. -; Hull v. Eidt-Summerfield Co., 204 S. W. 480, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Burt v. Woodson, 209 S. W. 244, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Girt v. Shaw, 70 Pa. Super. Ct. 345; James E. Carlson, Inc. v. Babler, 174 N. W. 824, - Minn. Sup. -; Edmundson v. Phenix, 178 N. W. 893*, - Minn. -; Hoefling v. Borson, 180 N. W. 750, - Iowa Sup. - .