Ordinarily, unless a contract of employment is coupled with an interest or is given for a valuable consideration, the authority of the agent may be terminated at will by giving notice, subject only to the requirement that it be given in good faith, and before the broker finds a purchaser. Branch v. Moore, 84 Ark. 462, 105 S. W. 1178; Blumenthal v. Goodale, 89 Cal. 251, 26 P. 906; Brown v. Pfau, 38 Cal. 550; Freeland v. Hughes, 109 I11. App. 73; Young v. Trainor, 158 I11. 428, 42 N. E. 139; Schuster v. Martin, 45 I11. App. 481; Gleason v. McKay, 37 I11. App. 464; Bush v. Hill, 62 I11. 216; Wilson v. Dyer, 12 Ind. App. 320, 39 N. E. 163; Kavanaugh v. Ballard, 21 Ky. L. R. 1683, 56 S. W. 159; Taylor v. Martin, 109 La. 137, 33 S. 112; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 186 Mass. 7, 70 N. E. 1033, 66 L. R. A. 982, 179 Mass. 474, 61 N. E. 37, 55 N. E. 77; West v. Demme, 128 Mich. 11, 88 N. W. 95; Heaton v. Edwards, 90 Mich. 500, 51 N. W. 544; Reishus-Remer Ld. Co. v. Benner, 91 Minn. 401, 98 N. W. 186; Jayne v. Drake (Miss. Sup. '06), 41 S. 372; Kolb v. Bennett Land Co. 74 Miss. 567; Jones v. Berry, 37 Mo. App. 125; Kesterson v. Chauvrant (Mo. App. '02), 70 S. W. 1091; Green v. Wright, 36 Mo. App. 298; Huffier v. Ellis, 64 Neb. 623, 90 N. W. 552; Slater v. Holt, 10 N. Y. State, 257; Cardy v. Ruth, 100 N. Y. S. 1043, 115 App. Div. 568, 103 N. Y. S. 1121; Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119; Raleigh R. E. & T. Co. v. Adams, 58 S. E. 1008, 145 N. C. 161; Vincent v. Woodland Oil Co. 165 Pa. St. 402, 30 A. 991; Evans v. Gay, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 74 S. W. 575; Newton v. Conness (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 106 S. W. 892; Knox v. Parker, 2 Wash. 34, 25 P. 909; Ernst v. Ganahl, 137 P. 256, 166 Cal. 493; Fields & Comb v. Vizard Inv. Co., 182 S. W. 934, 168 Ky. 744; Wright v. Waite, 148 N. W. 50, 126 Minn. 115; Howard v. Street, 93 A. 923, 125 Md. 289; Wiesells-Ger-hart Real Estate Co. v. Wainwright, 105 S. W. 1096, 127 Mo. App. 514; Saunders v. Hackley & Hume Co., 208 S. W. 67. - Mo. Sup. -; U. S. Farm Loan Co. v. Darter, 183 P. 696. - Cal. App. -; Emerson v. Ackerman, 124 N. E. 17, - Mass. Sup. -; Jenkins v. Kay, 224 S. W. 1028, - Mo. App. - . A power confided to two or more special agents terminates on the death of one. Mechem on Ag. Sec. 250; but the authority is not revoked by a letter which was not received by the broker. Sayre v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 151, 5 S. 157. A contract of agency may be terminated by the death of the principal. Crowe v. Trickey, 204 U. S. 228, affirming 71 P. (Ariz.) 965; Crowe v. Harmon, 204 U. S. 241, affirming 71 P. (Ariz) 1125; Kyle v. Gaff, 105 Mo. App. 672, 78 S. W. 1047; Shistler's Est. 2 Pa. Dist. 588; Mechem on Ag. Sec. 240; or by the partial destruction of the subject-matter, e. g. the dwelling; Cox v. Bowling, 54 Mo. App. 289. Where a time limit has been given, the principal can not but in good faith revoke before it expires. Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251, 26 P. 906; Glover v. Henderson, 170 Mo. 367, 25 S. W. 175; Stamets v. Dennison, 193 Pa. St. 548, 44 A. 575; Norton v. Sjolseth, 43 Wash. 327, 86 P. 573. Where the contract is limited to a definite period, it ends at that time. Zeimer v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509, 17 P. 642; La Force v. Washington Uni., 106 Mo. App. 517, 81 S. W. 209; Sorenson v. Smith, 129 P. 757, 65 Or. 78, 51 L. E. A. (N. S.) 612, Ann. Cas. 1915 A, 1127; jud. aff'd on re. 131 P. 1022, 65 Or. 78, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 612, Ann. Cas. 1945 A, 1127; Naylor v. Ashton, 130 P. 181, 20 Cal. App. 544; Edwards v. Laird, 134 P. 365, 22 Cal. App. 398; Slotboom v. Simpson Lumber Co., 136 P. 641, 67 Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 337, den. re. 135 P. 889, 67 Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915, 339. The owner is under no obligation to extend the time in favor of a prospective purchaser found by the broker; time is. of the essence of such a contract. Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496, 33 P. 163; Watson v. Brook, 11 Oregon, 271, 3 Pac. 679; Naylor v. Ashton, 130 P. 181, 20 Cal. App. 544; Edwards v. Laird, 134 P. 365, 22 Cal. App. 398; Slotboom v. Simpson Lumber Co., 135 P. 889, 67 Or. 516, Ann. Cas. 1915 C, 339.

An agency may be revoked by a sale by the owner without notice to the agent; after the sale there is nothing to support the agency, and revocation will be presumed. Mechem on Ag. 220; White v. Hoskins, 121 Iowa, 354, 96 N. W. 876; Helling v. Darby, 71 Kan. 107, 79 P. 1073; Boars v. Hyland, 65 Minn. 150, 67 N. W. 1148; Hodge v. Appelles, 107 N.. Y. S. 170, 122 App. Div. 437; Ettinghoff v. Harwitz, 100 N. Y. S. 1002, 115 App. Div. 571; McDonald v. Cabiness, 100 Tex. 615, 102 S. W. 721; Hatch v. Coddington, 95 U. S. 48, 56. See also Sec. 643. Stone v. Howell, 150 N. W. 15, 168 Iowa, 282; Hallstead v. Perrings, 120 N. W. 1078, 87 Neb. 128; Johnston-Reynolds Land Co. v.

Ferqua, 151 S. W. 693, 105 Ark. 358; Myers v. Batcheller, 163 N. Y. Supp. 688, 177 App. Div. 47; McFadden v. Crisler, 213 S. W. 912, - Tenn. Sup. -; Cal. Land Sec. Co. v. Ritchie, 180 P. 625, - Cal. App. -; Both v. Thompson, 180 P. 656, - Cal. App. -; Wing v. Davis, 215 S. W. 636, - Ark. Sup. -; Stoats v. Mengelsen, 180 N. W. 78, - Neb. Sup. - . Contra, Reams v. Wilson, 147 N. C. 304, 60 S. E. 1124; also, Sec. 587. The agency may be revoked by the exercise of an option to purchase. Faraday Coal & Coke Co. v. Owens, 26 Ky. L. R. E. 243, 80 S. W. 1171. Notice to the agent terminating the agency takes effect from the date of the delivery or receipt thereof by the agent. Rees v. Pellow, 97 Fed. 167, 38 C. C. A. 94; Robertson v. Cloud, 47 Miss. 208. Violation of instructions warranted a principal in terminating the agency. Macferran v. Gallinger, 210 Pa. St. 74, 59 A. 435. Where a principal wrote his agent not to sell property but his residence, authority to sell the former was revoked. Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119. The fraud of a broker in making misrepresentations in negotiating an exchange of lands warranted his discharge. Featherstone v. Trone, 82 Ark. 381, 102 S. W. 196. A contract of agency determines on the fraud of the agent. Patton v. Cook, 48 N. W. 994, 83 Iowa, 71. An agency for ten days or until withdrawn in writing, is not terminated at the end of an extension granted. Clark v. Dalziel, 3 Cal. App. 121, 84 P. 429. Where several brokers have the same property for sale, a sale by one, to the knowledge of the others, puts an end to the contract with the others. Cash-man v. Glover, 11 I11. 600. Or without notice, infra. There are authorities holding that where the broker has incurred expenses, and has expended time and money in endeavoring to sell, the principal will not be allowed to terminate the agency. McCray & Son v. Pfost, 118 Mo. App. 672, 94 S. W. 998; and on doing so the agent may recover damages. Green v. Cole, 103 Mo. 70, 15 S. W. 317; Durkee v. Gunn, 41 Kan. 496, 21 Pac. 637; Bath-rik v. Coffin, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 101, 43 N. Y. S. 313; Rowan v. Hull, 55 W. Va. 335, 47 S. E. 92; Tappin v. Henley, 11 Weekly Rep. (Eng.) 466; McMillan v. Quincey, 72 S. E. 506, 137 Ga. 63. A contract terminated by a sale by the owner to one with whom the agent had begun negotiations does not defeat the broker's right to commissions. Sylvester v. Johnson, 110 Tenn.