If a real estate owner places property in the hands of a broker for sale at a fixed price, and the broker sells it for more to one for whom he is acting as agent for the investment of money, and secretly retains the excess he commits a fraud upon the seller and the purchaser for both of whom he acts as agent, and subjects himself to a double recovery of the excess. Lewis v. Dennison, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 387; Hannon v. Prentiss, 124 Mich. 417, 83 N. W. 102; Marsh v. Buchan, 46 N. J. Eq. 595, 22 A. 128. See also See. 964.

To entitle a broker to recover commissions for selling defendant's property, he must show an employment, the rendition of services at defendant's request, and that he acted in good faith for their best interests. Roome v. Robinson, 90 N. Y. S. 1055, 99 App. Div. 143; Stone v. Kries, 202 I11. App. 43; Schlessener v. Mott, 190 P. 745, - Kan. Sup. - .

A broker employed to sell real estate for $105,000 or more is not entitled to recover commissions where he might have procured a purchaser at $110,000 instead of $105,000. Lich-tenstein v. Mott, 91 N. Y. S. 57, 99 App. Div. 570; Harrison v. Lakeman, 189 Mo. 581, 88 S. W. 53. See also Sec. 412a.

A purchase by a real estate agent of the property in his hands for sale, without the knowledge of his principal, is sufficient to avoid the transaction, no matter if there was no actual fraud or no injury to the principal resulted. Butler v. Agnew, 9 Cal. App. 327, 99 P. 395.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser of real estate, is not liable to the principal for failing to exercise proper diligence to obtain a purchaser, nor for failing to communicate to the principal the fact that he has procured an intending purchaser; but he may terminate his efforts without notice to the principal. Siegel v. Rosenzweig, 114 N. Y. S. 179, 129 App. Div. 547.

A real estate broker can not be held liable for representing to an intending purchaser, that the owner would not accept less than the sum named by the broker for the premises, though the owner had, in fact, agreed with him to sell at a lower figure, in the absence of any confidential relations between the broker and the intending purchaser or fraud to prevent inquiry or investigation by such purchaser. Ripy v. Cronan (Ky. Ct. App. '09), 115 S. W. 791.

An agent to buy lands for his principal can not buy of himself; and an agent to sell lands for his principal can not sell to himself; nor can an agent to receive payments for his principal, bind the latter by the receipt of money due from himself. Mechem on Agency, Sec. 68.

Where a selling broker is aware that a customer is resolved and prepared to pay the price asked, he should not send the customer to his principal to negotiate directly, without communicating to the principal his knowledge of the customer's resolution; and, if he withholds such information from the principal, he forfeits any claim for commissions, even though the principal obtained from the customer the full price originally asked. Carter v. Owens (Fla. Sup. '09), 50 S. 641.

An agent employed to sell ordinarily owes to his principal the duty to use such skill and industry as may be requisite to accomplish the object of his employment, and with full fidelity to the best interests of his employer. Handly v. Shafer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636.

A broker employed to effect an exchange of realty held bound to use ordinary care, and to occupy a fiduciary relation requiring him to act with loyalty and good faith. Myers v. Adler, 176 S. W. 538, 188 Mo. App. 607.

Where an agent employed to find a buyer for land has communicated an offer to his absent principal, receiving his acceptance, and then obtained knowledge of a better offer, it is his duty to communicate the new offer to the principal, and not to communicate the acceptance to the maker of the first offer. Kershaw v. Schafer, 129 P. 1137, 88 Kan. 691.

It is a broker's duty to inquire as to terms of sale, and as to the general character of the property, and it is not misrepre3en-tation, either wilful or inadvertent, for the owner to remain mute when not asked as to encroachments thereon. Wiggins v. Estate of Chas. E. Coddington, 145 N. Y. Sup. 3, 83 Misc. Rep. 439.

That a land broker was told by the owner that defects had been found in the title, but that he believed it was good, as they had owned the land thirty or forty years, was sufficient to put the broker on inquiry and charge him with notice of the defects, the statement by the owner that the title was good, for the reason given, being merely the expression of an opinion. Montgomery v. Amsler, 122 S. W. 307, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 216.

Broker was not entitled to commissions for securing a purchaser, where the sale failed on account of broker's misrepresentation. Maries v. Scliultze, 177 I11. App. 638.

The rule that a broker violating his trust forfeits his commissions does not apply to mere errors of judgment, or omissions not amounting to misconduct or gross disregard of duty. Neighbor v. Pacific Realty Ass'n, 124 P. 523, 40 Utah, 610, Ann. Cas. 1914 D, 1200.

Where a corporation was employed to procure a purchaser of realty, and was given an option to purchase, which option was exercised within sixty days after an agreement and negotiation with a third person who desired to buy was begun; the acts of the officers of the corporation in offering to such persons at an advance were done under the mistaken belief that the same were proper; though they failed to notify the owner of the facts, they were not deprived of the stipulated commission for procuring a purchaser, though they must account to the owner for the profits made on resale to such third person. Id.

If a broker is not the agent of the vendor, his right to commissions which they agreed to pay him is not affected by his not advising them that the purchaser represented an undisclosed principal, or by his agreement to divide commission with the purchaser; he owed no duty in such respect to the vendor. Lawler v. Armstrong, 102 P. 775, 53 Wash. 664.