392, 75 S. W. 923; U. S. Farm Land Co. v. Darter, 183 P. 696, - Cal. App. -; Ritch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup. -; Brown & Peeples v. Stokes, 103 S. E. 423, - Ga. App. - . Contra, Quist v. Goodfellow, 99 Minn. 509, 110 N. W. 65. Under a contract to continue until withdrawn in writing, a deed by the owner to a purchaser was held not equivalent to a withdrawal. Kimmel v. Shelly, 130 Cal. 555, 62 Pac. 1067. This conflicts with the well established rule that a sale of the subject-matter of the agency puts an end to the agent's employment.

Where a purchaser failed to make payment, and the owner declared the contract at an end, he was held liable to the broker for his commission. Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518, 20 N. E. 174. An agency once terminated is not revived by subsequent acts. Moore v. Stone, 40 Iowa, 259. A revocation may be effected by notification to the agent in writing or by parol, even where power was given by deed, or be implied from circumstances. Brookshire v. Brookshire, 8 Ired. (N. C.) 74. "Where an agent has special authority to do only a particular act no notice of revocation to third parties is necessary. 1 Parsons on Con. 71. The revocation of a contract with a broker, after he procures a purchaser, does not operate to deprive the broker of commissions. Branch v. Moore, 84 Ark. 462, 105 S. W. 1178; Bush v. Hill, 62 I11. 216; Provident T. Co. v. Darraugh, 168 Ind. 29, 78 N. E. 1030; Gillett v. Corum, 7 Kan. 156; Shepard v. Hedden, 29 N. J. L. 334; Reams v. Wilson, 147 N. C. 304, 60 S. E. 1124. The revocation of a contract to sell follows a sale by the owner and no notice to the agent is necessary. Wallace v. Figone, 107 Mo. App. 362, 81 S. W. 492. Compare, Reams v. Wilson, 147 N. C. 304, 60 S. E. 1124. Where a broker has a certain time within which to effect a sale, the principal can not defeat his right to compensation by revoking the agency before the expiration of the time specified. Harrison v. Angerson, 115 I11. App. 226; Stamets v. Dennison, 193 Pa. St. 548, 44 A. 575. Compare Sec. 22; Sill v. Ceschi, 140 P. 940, 167 Cal. 698; Caldwell v. Tannehill, 81 S. E. 6, 117 Va. 11; Smith v. Plant, 103 N. E. 58, 216 Mass. 91; Dodge v. Childers, 151 S. W. 749, 107 Mo. App. 448; Reams v. Wilson, 60 S. E. 1124, 147 N. C. 304; J. L. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Binns, 77 S. E. 443, - Ga. App. - . Where a purchaser is unable to carry out his contract, the contract with the broker is cancelled. Riggs v. Turnbull, 105 Md. 135, 66 A. 13, 8 L. E. A. (N. S.) 824. Authority conferred on a partnership to sell real estate is terminated on the dissolution of the partnership. Larson v. Newman (N. D. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 202; Schlan v. Engenbacher, 107 N. E. 107, 265 I11. 626, L. E. A. 1915, C. 576. Dissolution of a firm of brokers did not terminate a contract giving them the right to sell land for a certain commission, where their dissolution agreement expressly continued the business as to the contract involved. Eendrick v. Hansen, 170 P. 675, - Cal. App. - . The owner of a lot, who had placed it in a broker's hands for sale wrote him that she felt at liberty to withdraw "from the proposition under consideration," if she chose. The broker replied that upon receipt of her letter he had seen his client, but could not make the deal, and that it looked like the matter was closed, unless she would accept a lower offer. Held, That the broker's letter terminated the agency at the time of mailing, and he was not entitled to commissions on a sale of the lot negotiated by him next day. Jackson v. Parrish, 157 Ala. 584, 47 S. 1014; Haygood v. Parrish, 157 Ala. 584, 47 S. 1015.

Under the stipulations of a contract listing a farm with the broker for sale, that if the farm should be sold by the owner, after withdrawal from the broker, to a customer to whom the broker had recommended it, or who had learned that it was for sale, directly or indirectly, from the broker, the owner would pay a designated commission, the owner is liable for the commission on a sale to a customer to whom the broker recommended the farm, whether such sale was effected, in whole or in part, by reason of such recommendation or not. Strout v. Hubbard (Me. Sup. '08), 71 A. 1020; Fifer v. Lewis, 183 I11. App. 349; Provident Trust Co. v. Darrough, 78 N. E. 1030, 168 Ind. 20; Ewan v. Power, 178 S. W. 1092, 165 Ky. 806; Burt v. Stringfellow, 143 P. 234, 45 Utah, 207; Cannon v. Bates, 80 S. E. 581, 115 Va. 711; Peters v. Holmes, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 278; Ellison v. Chappell, 168 N. Y. Supp. 376, 181 App. Div. 263.

Where an owner employing a broker to procure a purchaser of property terminated the authority of the broker, after receiving an offer from the person with whom the broker was negotiating, and subsequently dealt directly with such person, and made a sale for a price over twice as much as the offer to the broker, the broker was not entitled to commissions, for his authority had been terminated in good faith, and not to avoid the payment of commissions. Gardner v. Pierce, 116 N. Y. S. 155; Walker v. Baldwin & Frich, 68 A. 25, 106 Md. 619. Compare Sec. 687a.

Where the sub-agent derives his authority solely from the agent no notice is required to be given by the principal to the sub-agent of the revocation of the agent's authority; but where the sub-agent was appointed by and with the authority of the principal, he is the agent of the principal, and notice should be given to him of the revocation of his authority. Mechem on Ag., Sec. 227-

A contract giving an agent the exclusive right to find a purchaser for a farm within a given time is not breached by a sale by the owner at public auction, through the medium of an auctioneer acting under his immediate direction. Ingold v. Symons, 111 N. W. 802, 134 Iowa, 206. An agreement by the president of a corporation with a real estate broker that, so long as he remained president, it would not purchase certain tracts of land through anyone but the broker, is not binding upon the company after the resignation of the president, although he remained a director and one of the committee in charge of the purchase of that property. Foss v. N. Y. Cen. & H. R. R. Co., 146 N. Y. Supp. 930, 161 App. Div. 681; judg. aff'd 112 N. E. 1059, 217 N. Y. 727. Where defendant gave plaintiff authority to sell land, and when plaintiff, after reasonable effort, failed to make a sale on the terms specified, defendant withdrew authority in good faith, he was not liable to plaintiff for a commission for a sale made over a year later on a different basis, although to a purchaser originally introduced by plaintiff. Bodine v. Penn Lumber Co., 194 S. W. 226, - Ark. Sup. - . A broker who produces a Syndicate as purchaser within the time fixed is not entitled to his commission where only one of the members of the syndicate had signed the syndicate agreement prior to the expiration of the broker's agency. Weitbrec v. Morris, 163 P. 1119, - Cal. App. - . Principal selling to a purchaser produced by broker, held liable for the reasonable value of broker's services, though he did not know the purchase was so induced. Ford v. Cole, 195 S. W. 661, - Tex. Civ. App. - . When the relation between principal and broker is found to have existed, it continues until the agent in dealing with principal's property notified principal he desired to deal at arm's length with purchaser, disclosing all facts relating to the subject-matter of the contract while the agency existed. Clark v. Rogers Foundry & Mfg. Co., 199 S. W. 576, - Mo. App. - . Where a real estate agent places his principal in touch with purchaser, and thereafter principal terminates agency and completes sale to such purchaser, agent may recover his commission. Johnson v. Columbia Mer. Trust Co., 201 S. W. 365. Where an agent in good faith expends time and labor, but has not had reasonable opportunity to avail himself of results, principal can not terminate agency and use such services without compensating the agent. Id.