A broker employed to sell at a certain price can not recover commissions for selling at a lower price. Blackwell v. Adams, 28 Mo. App. 61; Williams v. McGraw, 52 Mich. 480, 18 N. W. 227. A broker, in order to be assured of compensation for his services, should have a contract of employment. Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496, 33 P. 163; Day v. Hale, 50 I11. App. 115; Dyer v. Sutherland, 75 I11. 583; Thomas v. Merrifield, 7 Kan. App. 669, 53 P. 891; Downing v. Buck, 135 Mich. 636, 98 N. W. 388; Crosby v. St. Paul Lake Ice Co. 74 Minn. 82, 76 N. W. 958; Coffin v. Linxweiler, 34 Minn. 320; Whiteley v. Terry, 83 N. Y. App. Div. 197, 82 N. Y. S. 89; McVicker v. Roche, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 397, 77 N. Y. S. 501; Fowler v. Hosher, 53 N. Y. App Div. 327, 65 N. Y. S. 638; Whitchouse v. Drisler, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 525, 56 N. Y. S. 95; Von Hermann v. Wagner, 81 Hun, 431, 30 N. Y. S. 991; Johnson v. Whalen, 13 Okla. 320, 74 P. (503); Addison v. Wannamaker, 185 Pa. St. 536, 39 A. 1111; Copeland v. Stone-ham Tannery Co. 142 Pa. St. 446, 21 A. 825; Harrison v. Long, 4 Desau (S. C), 110; Pipkin v. Home (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 68 S. W. 1000; Ehrenroth v. Putman (Tex. Civ. App. '00), 55 S. W.

190; O'Connor v. Kennedy, 180 I11. App. 277; Guild v. Sampson, 122 N. E. 712, - Mass. Sup. -; Browning v. Dowell, 218 S. W. 45, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

In case the contract of employment fails to state the terms of sale, terms satisfactory to the principal are implied. Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521, 88 N. W. 15; Montgomery v. Knickerbocker, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 117, 50 N. Y. S. 128. The contract of employment may be drawn so as to deprive the broker of any right to commissions if the transaction fails because of a defect in the principal's title to the real estate. Louisville R. Co. v. Shepard, 126 Ala. 416, 28 S. 202. If the agency is limited to the sale of certain property, the broker must show that the property sold was within the limits of the contract. Maze v. Gordon, 96 Cal. 61, 30 Pac. 962; Park v. Hagle, 124 Iowa 98, 99 N. W. 185.

Testimony of plaintiff, in an action to recover for services in purchasing an electric plant, that he went to defendant and told him that he came pursuant to a telegram from a third person; that he told defendant he had obtained papers relative to the plant and showed them to him; that defendant examined them and expressed his satisfaction with the showing, and said he wanted plaintiff to represent him in the matter, and, if the plant was purchased, wanted it taken in plaintiff's name, and that he would take care of the plaintiff in the matter, is sufficient to show an employment by defendant, and an agreement to pay the reasonable value of the services. Hart v. Moloney, 80 N. Y. S. 293, 80 App. Div. 265.

A company sought employment as agents for a commission to procure a purchaser; it was not recognized as such, and was informed that a part of the premises had been sold, and that an option contract had been given for the balance; subsequently it wrote the owner that it had a party in view whom it might interest in the property, " provided we could get an option." The owner refused to give the option, and fixed the price per acre and the terms, adding, "If you can do anything for me on these terms I shall be glad to hear from you." The company wrote, "Our people will pay $2,500 net." The owner agreed to sell, and the company, in transmitting the opinion of its attorney on the abstract, referred to unpaid taxes, the cost of the abstract, and a claim on account of a deficiency in the acreage, without any reference to the commissions. Held, That the company was not the owner's agent to procure a purchaser, though it expected a commission to which it was not entitled. Steele v. Lawyer, 47 Wash. 266, 91 P. 958.

Defendants leased mining property to plaintiff, with an option to purchase during the third year of the lease for $20,000, and a deed conveying the property to the plaintiff was deposited with a bank, with instructions to deliver it upon receipt of the sum of $2,500 less than that stated in the option. Held, That there was nothing in the lease or instructions to show that plaintiff was an agent to sell the property on commission. Pollard v. Sayre, (Colo. Sup. '08), 98 P. 816. In an action by a real estate broker to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser for defendant's property, a letter from the broker stating that if the owner of the land makes an exchange, the broker expects him to pay a commission, and asking him if he would do so, and the answer from the owner that in case of a sale he would be willing to pay a commission, was sufficient to show an implied promise on the part of the owner to pay what plaintiff's services were reasonably worth on a subsequent exchange brought about by the services of the plaintiff. Anndbil v. Traverse Land Co. (Minn. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 233.

Employment to "get an offer" for land is one to make a sale or exchange in a reasonable time, and not merely to procure a single offer. Curran v. Hubbard, 114 P. 81, 14 Cal. App. 733, re. den. 114 P. 83, 14 Cal. App. 733. Where a real estate broker wrote to a landowner that an out-of-town customer wanted to buy a large tract of land, and he wished to know if the owner's land was for sale, and if so, at what price, the owner's reply fixing a price, and describing his land in accordance with the request, will not create a contract entitling the broker to a commission for procuring a purchaser. Bond v. Humbird, 80 A. 943, 118 Md. 650. Broker employed to purchase, held, not entitled to a commission until he secures a vendor able to convey free from incumbrances. Bronk v. Conn. Trust & Safe Deposit Co., 93 A. 128, 89 Conn. 134. The rights of an agent, or his assignee, to compensation are fixed when a sale has been made, and the payment of the compensation cannot be postponed by any agreement between the principals and a third person to which the agent is not a party. F. Haag & Bro. v. Reichert, 134 S. W. 191, 142 Ky. 298. Where realty brokers replied to a response to their ad, stating that the owner of the places they advertised could not consider the property of the person who answered, and then made a counter offer, no contract of employment of the brokers by the party resulted. Lueddemann v. Rudolf, 154 P. 116, re. den. 155 P. 172, - Or. Sup. - . A contract which makes one the agent of an owner of land for the sale thereof is simply a listing contract, revocable at any time by the owner. Fields & Combs v. Vizard Inv. Co., 182 S. W. 934, 168 Ky. 744. That defendant, while acting as agent for B, one of the parties to an exchange of realty, promised plaintiff, the other party, that he would get the price he could from B, did not constitute defendant plaintiff's agent. Carothers v. Caine, 175 P. 478, - Cal. App. - . Where the owner of timber-lands agreed that plaintiff might sell them within a certain time and on certain terms, the owner reserving the right to approve or reject any parties or any proposition, made commission to be paid in case of sale to a purchaser induced by the broker; such agreement gave no exclusive right to the broker to sell and thereby earn a commission, but merely constituted a listing of the property for sale. Saunders v. Hackley & Hume Co., 208 S. W. 67 , - Mo. App. - . A contract by defendant to pay plaintiff a fixed commission on a sale of land at a fixed price, with a sufficient cash payment to "secure him on the sale", the balance at 5% for "five years and maybe longer", was a valid brokerage contract. Edmundson v. Phenix, 178 N. W. 893, - Minn. - . A broker's letter, dated January 29, 1919, stating his understanding that the first mortgage on defendant's farm ran to March 1, 1921, and inquiring whether he would carry a second mortgage till then, and that he had a party inquiring about it who had only $8,000, and defendant's reply seven days later offering to sell, if buyer assumed first mortgage of $8,000 and paid $12,000 in cash, and the balance in a few months, or all the price in cash, did not create an agency for an indefinite term or authorize the broker to sell at the same price on the last day of May, 1919. Moore v. Bentson, 179 N. W. 560, - Minn. Sup. - .