(1) In an action to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser for real estate; held, that the direction of a verdict in favor of defendant was error under the evidence. Nudelman v. Haffen-berg, 185 I11. App. 91.

(2) In a broker's action for commissions against A., where evidence indicated that A.'s broker "E.", who claimed to own the property, though the record title was in A., was the person who negotiated with the broker, instructions were erroneous, as making the dummy personally liable on the contract as a matter of law. Rubin v. Ernst, 151 N. Y. Supp. 849.

(3) Instruction that if the owner sold in breach of his contract for less than $13,000, the agent was entitled to his commission, was misleading, so as to call for a new trial, where, after the sale a rebate to the purchaser was made by the owner for a shortage of half an acre, the question being whether the land was sold for $13,000. Briggs v. Hall, 129 P. 288, 20 Cal. App. 372.

(4) In an action for broker's commission, evidence held not to sustain an instruction requested. Sholine v. Harris, 123 P. 330, 22 Colo. App. 63.

(5) Instruction in an action by a broker for his commission; held, ambiguous. Hughes v. Kerr, 141 P. 510, 26 Colo. App. 162.

(6) Where an intestate was to receive a specified sum for services in assisting in getting an option and other services with reference to certain land, an instruction that defendant agreed to pay intestate for getting an option and rendering other services in consummating a sale was improper, as imposing on intestate duties not required by the contract. Smith v. Crane, 154 S. W. 857, 169 Mo. App. 695.

(7) Where brokers, in a suit for commissions for inducing an exchange of property, alleged that they were employed to interest D. in making an exchange, and were not to be paid unless the exchange was made on terms satisfactory to defendants, an instruction authorizing a finding in plaintiff's favor, if the contract was that plaintiffs should induce or "attempt" to induce D. to make the exchange, without regard to whether the exchange was made after "attempt" on defendants' part to cancel the agency, etc., unless the jury found that the attempted revocation of the agency was made in "entire" good faith, was objectionable as not within the issues, and also as calculated to discredit defendants' theory of the transaction by the use of the word "entire," and cause the jury to infer that their good faith must have been proved by more satisfactory testimony than was required to prove other facts. T. A. Hill & Son v. Patton & Schwartz, 141 S. W. 1025,

- Tex. Civ. App. - .

(8) In an action by a broker for commission, instruction authorizing a recovery and refusal of a requested charge on the subject; held, reversible error. Arrington v. Layden, 175 S. W. 475,

- Tex. Civ. App. - .

(9) In an action for brokerage commission for procuring purchaser for real estate belonging to defendant's mother, an instruction that the question of ownership of the property was "altogether immaterial"; held misleading, when the controverted issues of fact were, whether plaintiff did not know that defendant was acting merely as agent of the owner in the transaction, and whether defendant made any personal promise to pay the commission. Yuck-man v. Considine, 191 I11. App. 192.

(10) As defendant is entitled to have an oral instruction given presenting his theory of defense, that there could be no recovery for broker's commission if he was not the owner of the property nor authorized to offer it for sale, and plaintiff so knew prior to his negotiations with the purchaser. Id.

(11) In an action by an agent for a commission provided for in an application for a loan, prepared by him and read to defendant, where the defendant claimed that the contract was induced by the agent's fraud in not reading these parts providing for a commission, the plaintiff claimed that before the defendant took any steps under the contract, plaintiff sent defendant a letter referring to the commission and explaining everything, it was a question for the jury whether a new contract was made, regardless of the application, and an instruction that the agent was entitled to recover if the defendant received the letter was erroneous. Carroll v. Park, 136 S. W. 961, 156 Mo. App. 446.

(12) In an action for commission, instruction disregarding the discharge of agent before sale; held, erroneous. Graf & Case Realty Co. v. Lovell, 163 S. W. 877, 180 Mo. App. 706.

(13) In an action for a broker's commission for procuring a tenant for defendant's premises, an instruction that plaintiff should recover if defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission for securing a tenant, and plaintiff secured such tenant and introduced him to defendant "for the purpose and with the intent of leasing the premises in question, for a period of ten years," and that afterward the defendant did rent such premises to that person, or if no contract was made between plaintiff and defendant, that plaintiff, with the consent of defendant, procured a tenant for the premises, and defendant accepted such services, was misleading, as the intent of the broker in introducing the prospective tenant was not a sufficient basis for a recovery, in the absence of a contract to pay a commission, and a showing that the party introduced was able and willing to make a lease for tenant. Floore v. J. T. Burgher & Co., 142 S. W. 939, - Tex. Civ. App. - ., judg. aff., 174 S. W. 819, - Tex. Sup. - .

(14) In an action for broker's commission for selling realty, a requested charge making the right to recover dependent upon defendant's accepting conditions that he would be required to pay a commission, was objectionable. Toland v. Williams & Wiley, 129 S. W. 392, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(15) In an action for commissions, an instruction that if the original contract "was changed by mutual agreement for the mutual advantage of both parties," was misleading, as permitting an application that the modified contract might not have been binding, because not as favorable to plaintiff as the original contract. Bailey v. Spalding-Livingston Inv. Co., 136 P. 962, 43 Utah, 535.