(1) In an action for commissions for a sale of real estate based on a contract fixing the compensation at the price secured above a certain sum; held, that the court was warranted in giving peremptory instruction in favor of plaintiff. Davidson v. Zerger, 181 I11. App. 113.

(2) In an action to recover commissions for negotiating exchange of real estate for defendants, directing a verdict for plaintiffs held not improper. Rothoaum v. Solomon, 187 I11. App. 338.

(3) Where a broker did not predicate his right to commission on the theory that he was employed to sell defendant's farm and did sell it, but admitted that defendant sold the farm himself, an instruction that if defendant contracted to pay plaintiff a commission on the purchase price, provided plaintiff sold the farm for defendant, they should find for defendant, was not objectionable as refusing plaintiff a recovery, even though he was employed and may have made the sale. Stoner v. Nall, 148 S. W. 8, 149 Ky. 124, opin. mod. on re., 150 S. W. 648, 150 Ky. 511.

(4) In a broker's action for commissions for procuring an offer of a loan, in which defendant claimed that his offer as to a loan was not an exclusive privilege, and had expired when the client agreed to make the loan, an instruction on the question; held, not inconsistent with itself and confusing. West v. Hudson, 137 N. W. 668, 171 Mich. 669.

(5) In an action by a broker to recover one-half of the commission which he asserted defendant agreed to share with him, a charge held correct. Minds v. Eeyes, 155 N. W. 493, 189 Mich. 629.

(6) In an action by a broker for compensation for procuring a purchaser, an instruction held not open to the objection that it was not justified by evidence. Moore v. King, 178 S. W. 124, - Mo. Sup. - .

(7) Instruction in an action by a broker for breach of contract; held, not erroneous for failing to formally limit the jury in assessing damages. Id.

(8) In a broker's action against another broker for a commission, court's statement of plaintiff's contention held to have support in the evidence, Nevins v. Hughes, 84 S. E. 769. 168 N. C. 477.

(9) In an action by a broker for commissions, an instruction that one who signs a contract drafted by his own adviser, can not say he did not understand it was not in conflict with another, that plaintiff could not recover if defendant understood that his apple crop was reserved where the first related to defendant's claim that he did not know that he was signing a contract. Sill v. Ceschi, 140 P. 749, 167 Cal. 698.

(10) In an action for commissions on a sale of real estate claimed to have been made by plaintiff for defendant, it is not error in an instruction to use the word "listed" in the same sense

. that it had been frequently used in the testimony, and as it is understood in ordinary conversation. Wright v. Olson, 191 111. App. 272.

(11) In an action by brokers for commission for procuring a purchaser for land, an instruction on the question of exclusive contract was warranted by evidence tending to show that defendant agreed to wait until a certain day, and not to sell without giving notice to plaintiffs. Reimers v. Pierson, 113 P. 436, 58 Or. 86.

(12) An instruction in a broker's action for commissions; held, not erroneous as conflicting between the proofs relating to an implied promise and those relating to an express promise. Carl v. Wolcott, 156 S. W. 334, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(13) Instruction submitting, whether commissions should be paid on a broker procuring a contract of exchange or on the exchange being completed; held, proper. Ball v. Davenport, 152 N. W. 69, 170 Iowa, 33.

(14) An instruction in an action by a broker for commissions for procuring contract for exchange of real estate; held, to deal only with the question of the alleged failure of the minds of the parties to meet, "of which there is no evidence." Id.

(15) An instruction given on a broker's right to recover a commission, and on the owner's right to withdraw the land from the market and to change the price, to avoid liability for a commission; held, not erroneous. Culbertson v. Sheridan, 144 P. 268, 93 Kan. 268.

(16) Where, in an action for broker's commission, there was evidence that plaintiff had told defendant that he would have nothing further to do with the purchaser, after he had withdrawn a prior offer, the court properly charged that if the jury found plaintiff so stated, defendant was entitled to employ another broker to sell the property to such purchaser, and, under such circumstances, plaintiff could not recover. Woods v. Lowe, 92 N. E. 772, 207 Mass. 1.

(17) In an action by a broker for commissions on a sale of land, the issues raised at the trial were, whether plantiff withdrew from further negotiations with the prospective purchaser to whom a sale was finally made through another broker, and whether the offer by such purchaser was communicated to defendant. Held, that the court adequately submitted the issues by charging that, if the plaintiff refused to further deal with the purchaser, defendant was justified in employing another broker to do so, and, in such case, plaintiff would not be entitled to compensation, that if the sale was wholly due to the efforts of the other broker, plaintiff could not recover, but that if plaintiff's employment had not been terminated, the jury might find that plaintiff was the efficient cause of he sale, if they were satisfied that it was in consequence, though not absolutely and entirely, that the sale was made, and that if there was a bona fide offer to purchase made by the purchaser to the plaintiff, which plaintiff wrongfully failed to communicate to defendant, whereby he was injured, plaintiff failed in his duty and could not recover. Id.

(18) An instruction stating matters essential to the validity and the requisite proof of the contract relied on by plaintiff, in an action for compensation for procuring a purchaser for defendant's farm; held, proper. Tenner v. Joslin, 155 N. W. 762, 132 Minn. 1.