(1) An agreement by a landowner and an agent authorized sale "if any trade be made within twelve months with parties brought to" the owner by the agent to protect the agent in his commission, contemplated any trade resulting from negotiations by the owner or any participated in by the agent. Shannon v. Lee, 60 S. 99, 178 Ala. 463.

(2) Broker's contract of employment; held, not revoked, but only construed together to contemplate that if the land was sold for $2,000 or more, the broker should receive a specified percentage, and if the price was more than $1,200, but did not exceed $2,000, he should have all in excess of $1,200. Ingram v. Coleman, 160 S. W. 886, 110 Ark. 632.

(3) An agreement to pay $1,500 as commission out of the first cash payment of $15,000; held, not to obligate the owner to pay a commission where only $1,000 was paid by the purchaser. Beckwith-Anderson Land Co. v. Allison, 147 P. 482, 26 Cal. App. 473.

(4) A contract for a commission for a sale of land; held, not to entitle the broker to the additional compensation provided to procure assistance of another in making the sale, where he simply had another agent to point out the location of the tile in the ground. Harvey v. Main, 149 N. W. 236, 167 Iowa, 258.

(5) Under a contract making defendant agent to sell plaintiffs land, defendant to have, as compensation, half the selling price received in excess of $175 per acre, to be retained from the collections made by defendant after a certain amount was paid plaintiff, defendant is entitled to interest received on deferred payments representing defendant's share. Wright v. Percival-Porter Co., 156 N. W. 698, 174 Iowa, 522.

(6) Where owners wrote a letter to a real estate agent listing land at $11.50 per acre net to owners, and the letter came into the hands of plaintiff, another agent, who procured a purchaser, to whom the owners sold the land at $12.50 per acre, the owners could not, just before the contract was signed, raise the net price to $12.50, as against plaintiff. Culbertson v. Sheridan, 144 P. 268, 93 Kan. 268.

(7) Where a broker's contract for the sale of real estate provides for a net amount to the owner, his compensation is such sum as the purchaser is willing to pay in excess of such net price. Futrell v. Reeves, 176 S. W. 1151, 165 Ky. 282.

(8) Where one employed in selling land employs another, and agrees to pay him a fixed commission, and the one so employed finds a purchaser, it is immaterial to the question of the right to commission whether it absorbs the profits of his employer. Daniel v. Sheridan, 59 S. 24, 131 La. 88.

(9) Where the owner of premises agreed to pay a broker, as a commission for procuring a tenant, "all you get above $2,000 per year," and the broker leased the premises for five years at an annual rental of $2,200, he was entitled to the excess over $2,000 each year during the life of the lease, and not merely for one year. Goldstein v. D'Arcy, 87 N. E. 584, 201 Mass. 312.

(10) The owner of real estate employed a firm of brokers to sell the same, agreeing to pay the brokers 2 1/2% commission. A prospective purchaser procured by them offered less than the owner's price, and the brokers, in a letter to the owner, agreed to take a less commission than 2 1/2%, and shortly after the receipt of this letter the purchaser dropped all negotiations, which he renewed about six months later. After the renewal of the negotiations the owner again asked the brokers what their commission would be, and they agreed to take the same amount as before. Held, that as they led the owner to believe that their commission would be a less amount than 2 1/2% and he sold the land under that belief, so agreement was a binding contract supported by a valid consideration. La Chappelle v. Richer, 135 S. W. 957, 154 Mo. App. 500.

(11) Letters constituting a broker's employment for the sale of lands construed, under Rev. Stat. 1913, Sec. 7909, and held, that the broker was entitled to retain one dollar per acre as commission on a sale of land at $115 per acre, though the principal's first letter stipulated that the sale should be for $115 net per acre. Pottratz v. Piper, 145 N. W. 265, 95 Neb. 145.

(12) If plaintiff, in consideration of $120, agreed to procure a loan for defendant, he is only entitled to that compensation upon procuring the loan, and not to the payment of the disbursements incurred. Central Mtge. Go. v. Partello, 132 N. Y. Sup. 432.

(13) A contract for the employment of a broker to sell real estate, which stipulates that he shall receive for commission 30% of the price as fixed by the owner, that he shall receive such commission whether the tracts are actually sold by him or by any other, and that, where tracts are sold on the instalment plan, out of each instalment the broker shall receive 60% until the total amount of his commissions are paid, gives to the broker a commission on all sales of 30%, where the full price is paid, either in cash or by instalments, and on all sales where at least 50% of the price is paid, and he is entitled to 60% of the amount of instalment payments not equaling 50% of the price, though purchasers making contracts with the owner are unable to pay the price. Van Varick v. Suburban Inv. Co., 135 N. Y. Sup. 299, 76 Misc. Rep. 573.

(14) If defendant agreed to pay plaintiff all money over $9,000 which was received for his land from a purchaser procured by plaintiff, and to take suitable city property in payment thereof, the actual value of the city property received in exchange, and not the price placed thereon by defendant and the purchaser, should be taken in determining the amount of plaintiff's compensation. Grace v. McDowell, 120 P. 413, 60 Or. 577.

(15) Where defendant entered into written agreement to pay plaintiffs a commission of $750, to be allowed for faithfully entering into a contract with B. to act as sales agent of a named tract of land, also as a commission in helping to make the deal with B., only one commission could be collected, and plaintiffs could not recover the stipulated sum, together with a percentage commission for effecting the sale. Thompson v. Sargent, 134 P. 7, 66 Or. 384.