An agency to sell Teal estate is presumed to continue until a sale is effected, and the burden is on the principal to rebut such presumption. Hartford v. McGillicuddy, 103 Me. 224, 68 A 860. A contract of agency ordinarily ceases on the delivery of the title papers and the payment for the property. Walker v. Derby, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 134; Campbell v. Chase (Kan. Sup. '08), 96 P. 949; Bd Trus. Oberlin Coll. v. Blair, 45 W. Va. 812, 32 S. E. 203. Wallace v. McKenna, 173 P. 749, - Idaho Sup. - . The vendor sometimes limits the time within which to sell to 30 or 60 days. Beadle v. Sage Ld. & Imp. Co., 140 Mich. 199, 103 N. W. 554; Satterthivaite v. Goodyear, 137 N. C. 302, 49 S. E. 205. A principal is not liable for commissions if the sale is not made until after the time fixed has expired. Hurst v. Williams, 31 Ky. Law Pep. 658, 102 S. W. 1176; Dekker v. Klingman, 149 Mich. 96, 112 N. W. 727, 14 D. L. N. 341; Horton v. Inman, 145 Mich. 438; 108 N. W. 746; Loxley v. Studebacker, 68 A. 98, 75 N. J. L. 599; Ewing v. Lunn (S. Dak. Sup. '08), 115 N. W. 527; Slotboom v. Simpson Lumber Co., 136 P. 641, 67

Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915, C. 339, den. re. 135 P. 889, 67 Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915, C. 339; Wallace v. McKenna, 173 P. 749, - Idaho Sup. - . However, where the owner waives performance within the time and accepts a purchaser furnished after, he will be liable to the broker for commissions. Ice v. Maxwell, 55 S. E. 899, 61 W. Va. 9. A broker was held entitled to compensation, who found a purchaser near the end of the contract who desired time to examine the title. Watson v. Brooks, 13 Fed. 540, 8 Sawyer Cir. Ct. 316. See Sec. 175.

That the broker had not a continuing agency from Y. for the sale of the property until the time of its sale to A., is shown by the fact that when A. asked him if he still had the property for sale, he did not assert a continuing agency, but said that he would see, and then went to Y. to see if he could still be allowed to make the sale, and was informed by Y. that he could not do so, as another had taken up the matter. Kiefer v. Yoder, 198 Pa. St. 308, 47 A. 974.

A contract whereby real estate brokers were authorized to sell land, with a provision that, should the property be withdrawn before 1905, the brokers would receive compensation, does not, by its terms, expire in 1905. Berberet v. Myers, 144 S. W. 824, 240 Mo. 58. Contract of defendant owner to pay plaintiff brokers commission, giving brokers exclusive right to sell, with reserva-' tion by the owner of right to revoke the agreement on three months' notice in writing, held, sufficiently definite in fixing time of duration of the agency, in compliance with Stat. 1919, sec. 2305 m. Brown v. Marty, 179 N. W. 602, - Wis. Sup. - .

Where no consideration was paid by the real estate broker for a contract giving him for a certain time the "exclusive sale" of a farm, and he incurred no obligation to do anything, such contract, while it precluded the owner from giving any one else the power to sell, did not preclude a sale by the owner himself during the period named, in the absence of clear and unequivocal language negativing such right on his part. Roberts v. Harrington, 169 N. W. 603, 168 Wis. 217; Kurwin & Eichweiler, JJ., dissenting, 10 A. L. E. 810.