To entitle a broker to commissions or compensation a contract, express or implied, is necessary. Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496, 33 Pac. 163; Day v. Hale, 50 I11. App. 115; Stephen v. Scott, 43 Kan. 285, 23 P. 555; Thomas v. Merrifield, 7 Kan. App. 669, 53 Pac. 891; Holden v. Stark, 159 Mass. 503, 34 N. E. 1069; Brooks v. Leathers, 112 Mich. 463, 70 N. W. 1099; Nolan v. Swift, 111 Mich. 56, 69 N. W. 96; Downing v. Buck, 135 Mich. 636, 98 N. W. 388; Steidl v. McClymonds, 90 Minn. 205, 95 N. W. 906; Crosby v. St. Paul Lake Ice Co., 74 Minn. 82, 76 N. W. 958; Coffin v. Linxweiler, 34 Minn. 320; Kinder v. Pope, 106 Mo. App. 506, 80 S. W. 315; Whiteley v. Terry, 82 N. Y. S. 89, 83 App. Div. 197; McVicker v. Roche, 77 N. Y. S. 501, 74 App. Div. 397; Fowler v. Hosche, 65 N. Y. S. 638, 53 App. Div. 327; Whitehouse v. Drisler, 56 N. Y. S. 95, 37 App. Div. 525; Von Herrmann v. Wagner, 30 N. Y. S. 991, 81 Hun, 431; Johnson v. Whalen, 13 Okla. 320, 74 P. 503; Addison v. Wannamaker, 185 Pa. St. 536, 39 A. 1111; Copeland v. Stonehum Tan, Co., 142 Pa. St. 446, 21 A. 825; Pipkin v. Home (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 68 S. W. 1000; Ehrenroth v. Putman (Tex Civ. App '00), 55 S. W. 190; Clammer v. Eddy, 41 Colo. 235, 92 P. 722; Goode v. Sears, 226 S. W. 463, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Mere consent by the owner to the rendition of the services is insufficient, even where they result in a sale or exchange of the property, where the services were unsolicited. Merrill v. Lathan,

8 Colo. App. 263, 45 P. 524; Atwater v. Lockwood, 39 Conn. 45; Phelps v. Hale, 43 Colo. 255, 95 P. 925; Viley v. Pettit, 96 Ky. 576, 16 Ky. L. E. 650, 286, 29 S. W. 438; Wilson v. Clark, 54 Minn. 341, 56 N. W. 40; Pierce v. Thomas, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 354; Haase v. Schneider, 98 N. Y. S. 587, 112 App. Div. 336; Goodspeed v. Robinson, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.), 423; Goode v. Sears, 226 S. W. 463, - Tex. Civ. App. - . Contra, Kinder v. Pope, 106 Mo. App. 536, 80 S. W. 315.

A person acting as a broker in the sale of real estate, but not employed as such, will not be entitled to recover brokerage, unless it should appear that the seller knew, before the sale was consummated, that the plaintiff acted as a broker. Tink-ham v. Knox, 18 N. Y. S. 433, aff'd 2 Miss. Rep. 579, 21 N. Y. S. 954; Pallentine v. Mercer, 130 Mo. App. 605, 109 S. W. 1037.

Where a broker asks and obtains the price of land from the owner, this, without more, does not establish an employment of agency. Stephen v. Bailey, 149 Ala. 256, 42 S. 740; Castner v. Richardson, 18 Colo. 496, 33 P. 163; Denton v. Abrams, 105 N. Y. S. 2, 120 App. Div. 593; White v. Templeton, 79 Tex. 454, 15 S. W. 483; Dunn v. Price,, 87 Tex. 318, 28 S. W. 681; Meston v. Davies (Tex. Civ. App. 96), 36 S. W. 805; Phelps v. Hale, 43 Colo. 255, 95 P. 925.

Merely introducing a purchaser to the owner is insufficient to create a contract of employment, unless his character as agent was, at the time, disclosed to the owner. Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63; Stephens v. Bailey & Howard, 42 S. 740, 149 Ala. 256. Contracts with brokers for the sale of realty are presumptively entered into in good faith, and courts should protect the interests according to the true meaning of the contracts. Carder v. O'Neill, 176 Mo. 401, 75 S. W. 764. A contract to sell real estate may be created by a letter to the broker. Dekremen v. Clothier, 96 N. Y. S. 525, 109 App. Div. 481; Jasper v. Wilson (N. M. Sup. '08), 94 P. 951; Obenauer v. Solomon, 151 Mich. 570, 115 N. W. 696. To create such a contract the letter must be specific and certain. Fay v. Sutlers, 15 Okla. 171, 81 P. 426. Where an owner said he would allow certain commissions to a broker if he procured a purchaser to whom the owner would be willing to sell, a contract was established. Oliver v. Katz, 131 Wis. 409, 111 N. W. 509. Unless a different intention clearly appears, authority to sell will be limited to authority to find a purchaser. Brown v. Gilpin, 75 Kan. 773, 90 P. 267; Ross v. Craven (Neb. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 451.

A contract with a broker for six months to sell realty providing that, "at such time as a sale shall be effected," a commission shall be paid, does not entitle the broker to a commission on a sale by the owner, unassisted by the broker, within the time named. Davis v. Van Tassel, 107 N. Y. S. 910. Employing a broker to procure a purchaser for real estate, payment of commissions to be made, "as soon as a deal is made for making such contract or deal," citing owner to a prospective buyer, or being instrumental in any manner whatever, provided for a commission on making a sale or producing a purchaser. McDermott v. Mahoney, 115 N. W. 32, 106 N. W. 925, 139 Iowa, 292, affirmed. Finding a customer, with whom the principal concludes a contract of purchase, does not give any right to commissions, unless the broker was the procuring cause of the transaction. Quimby v. Tedford, 4 Colo. App. 210, 35 P. 276; Anderson v. Smythe, 1 Colo. App. 253, 28 P. 478; Babcock v. Merritt, 1 Colo. App. 84, 27 P. 882; Neufeld v. Oren, 60 I11. App. 350; Watta v. Howard, 51 I11. App. 243; Clark v. Nessler, 50 I11. App. 550; Collier v. Johnson, 23 Ky. L. R. 2453, 67 S. W. 830; Taylor v. Martin, 109 La. 137, 33 S. 112; Studer v. Byson, 92 Minn. 388, 100 N. W. 90; Francis v. Eddy, 49 Minn. 447, 52 N. W. 42; Cathcart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34, 49 N. W. 331; Putnam v. Howe, 39 Minn. 363, 40 N. W. 258; Armstrong v. Wahn, 29 Minn. 126, 12 N. W. 345; McCrary v. Kellogg, 106 Mo. App. 597, 81 S. W. 465; Crowley v. Somerville, 70 Mo. App. 376; Ramsey v. West, 31 Mo. App. 676; Frenzer v. Lee (Neb. Sup. '02), 90 N. W. 914; Wylie v. Marine Nat. Bk., 61 N. Y. 415; Phinney v. Chesebro, 87 N. Y. App. Div. 409, 84 N. Y. S. 449; Johnson v. Lord, 54 N. Y. S. 922, 35 App. Div. 325; Ware v. Dos Passos, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 32, 38 N. Y. S. 673; Woolley v. Buhler, 73 Hun, 158, 25 N. Y. S. 1045; South v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 72 Hun, 202, 25 N. Y. S. 368; Hay v. Platt, 66 Hun, 488, 21 N. Y. S. 362; White v. Twitchings, 26 Hun, 503; Mara-cella v. Odell, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 123; Harris v. Boertnell, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 189; Woods v. Barton, 47 N. Y. S. 184, 21 Misc. 326; Randruff v. Schroeder, 46 N. Y. S. 943, 21 Misc. 52; Burke v.

Pfeffer, 68 N. Y. S. 799, 34 Misc. 774; Brown v. Shelton (Tex. Civ. App. '93), 23 S. W. 483; Stevenson Co. v. Oppenheimer, 104 A. 88, - N. J. Sup. - . See also Sec. 446.

A letter written to a broker advising him that if he could purchase certain described real estate the signer thought he would be ready to purchase the same on the succeeding Monday at a specified price was not a sufficient note or memorandum of a contract to employ a broker to purchase the property required by Civil Code, section 1624. Logan v. McMullen, 4 Cal. App. 154, 87 P. 285.

A broker mailed to his client a blank contract of employment for his signature, containing the price, terms of sale, and a stipulation for five per cent. commissions The owner did not sign the contract, but wrote that the broker might sell to any person not an Armenian. Held, that the owner's reply was an express acceptance of each of the terms of the contract submitted, including the rate of commission. Badrd v. Loescher, 98 P. 49 (Cal. App. '08).

Defendant having, before acceptance, withdrawn his offer for the purchase of land carried by plaintiff on his books for sale for the owner, no promise or word with reference to the payment of commissions by defendant being shown, is not liable for commissions. Donnelly v. Chetejian, 115 N. Y. S. 125.

Plaintiff having a second mortgage on a mill, the owner of which offered him ten per cent commission for selling it, told defendant that if he would sell the mill he could have the commission, which the owner would pay, was not liable for the commission. Edwards v. Rich, 180 S. W. 415, - Mo. App. - . Contract contained in letters authorizing a broker to sell farm lands, held to fix a specified price at which the broker might sell and to hold good for six months, providing the owner did not in the meantime make a sale himself, which right was expressly reserved. Wing v. Davis, 215 S. W. 636, - Ark. Sup. - . The ordinary rule that a real estate agent is entitled to his commission when he procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy, or when he brings the buyer and seller together, who make a bargain on different terms than those theretofore dictated to agent, does not apply where his commission is governed by a special contract between himself and his principal. Karr v. Moffett, 185 P. 890, re. den. 187 P. 683, - Kan. Sup. - . An agreement by a real estate broker to procure a purchaser implies that the purchaser shall be able to buy, or that the seller and purchaser must be bound to each other in a valid contract. McCartney v. Shares, 188 P. 663, - Okl. Sup. - .