Where a non-resident owner employs a non-resident agent to sell real estate, the agent is authorized to employ a sub-agent. Eastland v. Maney, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 147, 81 S. W. 574. An owner writing to his broker after the time given to sell had expired, directing him to sell, if possible, within the next thirty days, if he could get a certain sum net, extended the term of employment. Johnson v. Wright 124 Iowa, 61, 99 N. W. 103. See also Sec. 560. "Where an owner informed his broker that it would not be necessary for him to produce the purchaser to reduce the contract to writing, further steps in the matter by the broker were unnecessary. Gerhart v. Peck, 42 Mo. App. 644. Where the owner of a building employed brokers to obtain tenants, and authorized the brokers to conduct their customers into the building, he was liable for injuries sustained by a customer while examining the building in company with the brokers and due to their negligence. Boyd v. U. 8. Mtge., etc., Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 413, 88 S. 289.

The mere erection of a sign on property by real estate agents as for sale by them, the name of the owner not being stated, does not hold them out as agents to the public, and as having general authority to bind the owner by a contract of sale. Davis v. Gordon, 87 Va. 559, 13 S. E. 35. If a letter amounts to a request to the person addressed to procure a purchaser for land, when the writer was part owner of the land and had full authority to act for the other owners and the person addressed acted upon the letter and did procure a purchaser satisfactory to the owner, and they concluded to sell the land to such purchaser, the owners were legally liable to pay the commissions promised. Fisk v. Henerie, 13 Oregon, 156, 9 P. 322. If any of the terms of sale as to payment, abstracts or time are unsatisfactory to the owner, he should object on that ground, and not refuse absolutely to sell. Weaver v. Snow, 60 I11. App. 624. Where a contract ran for one year, and provided that if plaintiff, a real estate broker, effected a sale of defendant's property, he was to receive a certain commission, and in case a sale was made without his aid or the property was withdrawn from sale, one-half commissions. Held, that a lease for five years made by defendant, with the exclusive privilege to the lessee of purchasing at a fixed price at any time before the expiration of the lease, was a sale within the meaning of the contract, and entitled plaintiff to one-half of the commissions. Mucker v. Hall, 105 Cal. 425, 38 P. 962. Compare Sec. 19. Where a land-owner, who has engaged a real estate agent to sell land at a certain price, is forced to join with a joint owner to effect a sale, and sell at a reduced price, the agent is not entitled to commissions. Buhl v. Noe, 51 I11. App. 622; Wo-mack v. Douglas, 163 S. W. 1130, 157 Ky. 716. The owner of land authorized a broker to sell it and afterwards sold it himself; the broker then found a purchaser and sued for his commissions. Held, that he could recover only on the ground of the owner's breach of the contract, and not on the ground that he had fulfilled his contract as broker, for the owner still had the power to sell the land himself. Metzer v. Wyatt, 41 I11. App. 487. See authorities that a sale puts an end to the contract with the broker, Sec. 15.

One who purchases real estate from a non-resident owner, through a real estate broker, is bound to ascertain, not only the terms of his authority, but also the correspondence by which such authority was obtained. Merritt v. Wassenich, 49 Fed. 785; Sullivant v. Jahren, 71 Kan. 127, 79 P. 1071. Where certain land stood in the name of a third party, and the real owner procured a broker to sell the land who made false representations as to its value, and the nominal owner of the land held title to a bond and mortgage given in part payment of the price. Held, that the fraud of the real owner and the broker was imputable to the person in whose name they acted. Fairchild v. McMahon, 139 N. Y. 290, 34 N. E. 779, affirming 20 N. Y. S. 31, 65 Hun, 621.

If one employed to manage property for its owner is empowered to make such repairs only as are necessary to preserve and protect the property from ordinary wear and tear, he can not charge the owner with the expense of permanent improvements, as of rebuilding after a fire. Beekman v. Wilson, 61 Cal. 335. An exclusive agency to sell merely prohibits the appointment of another agent for the sale of the property, but does not prevent the owner himself from making a sale. Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 535, 43 N. W. 569. In the case of an agency to sell real estate, the exclusive right to sell not being given, the owner himself still has the right to make a sale independent of the agent, and in such case will not be liable to the agent for commissions, unless he sells to a purchaser procured by the agent. Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 535, 43 N. W. 569; Hungerford v. Hicks, 39 Conn. 259; Gilbert v. Coons, 37 I11. App. 448; Darrow v. Harlow, 21 Wis. 306; Tracey v. Radeki (Iowa Sup. '09), 119 N. W. 525.

The owner of property who sells it himself within the period which he has given to a broker to make a sale thereof, although the broker has done nothing toward facilitating the sale of the property, and the contract is unsupported by a valuable consideration, must pay the latter the commissions agreed on. Carle v. Parent (Montreal Law Reports), 5 Q. B. 451; Campbell v. Thomas, 87 Cal. 428; Gregory v. Bonney, 135 Cal. 589, 67 P. 1038; Lipscomb v. Cole, 81 Mo. App. 53; Stringfellow v. Powers, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 199, 23 S. W. 313; Harrel v. Zimple-men, 66 Tex. 292, 17 S. W. 478; Sechrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. (D. C.) 1.

Where brokers have been specifically employed to negotiate a contract with a designated person, without reserve of the principal's right to himself independently sell to the same person, the rule that a party having employed a broker to sell property may, nevertheless, negotiate a sale himself, is inapplicable. Carries v. Bassick, 175 N. Y. Supp. 670.

In a New York case of a similar exclusive character, where the agent performed no services in relation to the sale of the property on which he asked commissions, his claim was denied on the ground of want of consideration. Wright v. Fulling, 93 N. Y. S. 228, 104 App. Div. 49. Where defendants authorized plaintiff to sell certain real estate for them at any time within a year, the contract being supported by a valuable consideration, and agreed to pay a commission if a sale should be effected in any way during that time, and the land was sold by the defendants within the year, plaintiff to recover a commission need not show that he produced or could have produced a purchaser. Crane v. McCormick, 92 Cal. 176, 28 P. 222.

The owner of property, after negotiating with J with reference to a sale, gave plaintiff a written authority to sell the property for a specified price, and plaintiff then negotiated with J, who made an offer of a less sum, which was rejected by the owner, thereafter the owner revoked the authority, and subsequently, in pursuance of the negotiations between him and J, sold the property for the price fixed in plantiff's authority. Held, that in the absence of any fraud or bad faith, plaintiff was not entitled to recover a commission. Cards v. Perth, 100 N. Y. S. 1043, 115 App. Div. 568, 103 N. Y. S. 1121; Newton v. Conness (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 106 S. W. 892. The owner of land may sell the same himself, although he has placed it in the hands of a broker for sale, and the most the broker can claim is a commission on the sale. Woolf v. Sullivan, 224 I11. 509, 79 N. E. 646.

Where an owner of real estate which he has listed with an agent for sale for a definite price, sells the same unaided to one ostensibly the purchaser but really acting for another, who was induced to purchase it by the efforts of the agent, but the owner acted in good faith and in ignorance of these efforts, and sold for a consideration less than that given to the agent, he is not, there being no exclusive agency, liable for the commissions agreed to be paid to the agent for the production of a purchaser ready, able and willing to pay what the owner demanded. Quist v. Goodfellow, 99 Minn. 509, 110 N. W. 65. (Note. - In that State the doctrine of the procuring cause of the sale is not in its fullest extent recognized, and, in the absence of an exclusive right of sale, to entitle a broker to a commission it must appear that the owner knew, or from the circumstances ought to have known, that the broker was instrumental in inducing the purchaser to enter into the contract.)

An owner listing his property for sale at a fixed price with a real estate broker, with knowledge that the latter on procuring a purchaser will charge a commission, is liable for the commission when the broker procures a customer to whom a sale is made at the price fixed. Gault v. Bradshaw, 48 Wash. 364, 93 P. 534. A broker was employed to procure a purchaser for a farm within a specified time at a price which should net the owner $11,000 and the broker $875, or such less sum as should be satisfactory to the broker's agent having charge of the transaction; the owner sold the premises to a purchaser procured by the agent of the broker for $11,000, and the purchaser paid the agent $100 for commissions. Held, that the owner, if he knew that the agent in conducting the sale violated the instructions of the broker, was liable to the broker for commissions to the extent of $875, on the ground that he was guilty of a fraud on the broker. Haven v. Tartar, 124 Mo. App. 691, 102 S. W. 21; Thwing v. Clifford, 136 Mass. 482.

Although the owner of property may, after authorizing the sale by a broker, contract with a purchaser by himself alone, without rendering himself liable to the broker for a commission, he is not relieved of such obligation if he sells to a purchaser found and stimulated to make the purchase by the efforts of the broker, even though he has no actual knowledge that the broker has been the procuring cause, provided the broker has not, in the meantime, abandoned his undertaking. Sechrist v. Atkinson, 31 App. (D. C.) 1.

The fact that a person employing a broker to secure a renewal or extension of a mortgage loan is the owner of one undivided half of the mortgaged premises, and has no authority to contract for the co-owner, does not relieve him of liability for commissions. Stone v. Deahl, 174 I11. App. 421.

Where brokers, without authority from their principal, contract to sell more land than the principal owned, and the principal promptly repudiated the contract and received no part of such money, he was not liable to the purchaser for purchase money received by the brokers. Hurford v. Norvall, 135 P. 1060, 39 Okl. 496.

A contract between a real estate broker and an owner provided for a sale of lots at auction; held, not to deprive the owner of the right to sell independently of the broker. Head-Bevig Co. v. Bannister, 153 P. 669, - Okl. Sup. - . Ordinarily an owner of land may sell, even though he has listed it with a broker. Buck v. Woodson, 209 S. W. 344, - Tex. Civ. App. - .