Where a real estate broker, employed to procure a purchaser for a farm, procured a buyer who agreed with the owner on the terms of sale, and the buyer was given to a fixed date to purchase, unless the owner sold in the meantime, before the time fixed the buyer told the owner that he would not buy without also procuring adjacent land, which he could not do, the owner then stated to the buyer that the matter was settled between them, and later, on the same day, the buyer told the owner that he would take the farm on the terms agreed, it was held that the broker had earned his commission, though no sale was made, the owner's statement to the buyer not constituting a revocation of the broker's authority to procure a buyer. Sallee v. McMur-ray, 113 Mo. App. 253, 88 S. W. 157; compare Bailey v. More-head, 122 Mo. App. 268, 99 S. W. 973.

The revocation of a contract with an agent to take charge of property, rent the same and collect the rents, before any rents were collected, made the principal liable to compensate the agent for the services rendered. New Kanawha C. & M. Co. v. Wright, 163 Ind. 529, 72 N. E. 550. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff one dollar an acre for finding a purchaser for a certain farm at $37.50 per acre; after introducing a purchaser, but before sale, defendant wrote the plaintiff that he had no hopes of making a sale to such prospective purchaser, and that the owners of the land required $35 net per acre, which price had been quoted to the proposed purchaser, that if plaintiff still desired to assist, to make his commissons from the purchase price over $35 per acre, he was at liberty to proceed, otherwise the arrangement would be revoked; it was held that such letter did not constitute a revocation of plaintiff's authority so as to deprive him of the right to the contract commission, on the subsequent consummation of a sale to such purchaser. Provident Trust Co. v. Darraugh, 168 Ind. 29, 78 N. E. 1030.

Where a broker was employed to sell land for $75,000 at a commission of $2,000, and after he had introduced a purchaser his authority was revoked and the land was sold by his employer for $65,000, the broker was held entitled to recover only his contract commissions, with interest thereon, and not the customary commissions, or the reasonable value of his services. McGovern v. Bennett, 146 Mich. 558, 109 N. W. 1055, 13 D. L. N. 853; see, also, Sec. 572. The fact that the broker, not having an exclusive agency, has entered into a contract of sale on different terms, of which the principal has no notice, does not affect the principal's right to revoke the agency through a previous sale to another. Weisels-Gerhart B. E. Co. v. Wain-wright, 127 Mo. App. 514, 105 S. W. 1096.

An exclusive agency, for a valuable consideration, given for a period of seven days, was revoked by notice within the time, so that a purchaser who bought from the agent after such revocation, though within the seven days, had no enforceable contract of sale, the agent, however, might have an action against his principal for a breach of the contract. Norton v. Sjolseth, 43 Wash. 327, 86 P. 573; compare Cadigan v. Crab-tree, 192 Mass. 233, 78 N. E. 412. In a well considered case it was held that a revocation in fraud of a broker's rights would not amount to a revocation. Cadigan v. Crdbtree, 192 Mass. 233, 78 N. E. 412. This, however, conflicts with the doctrine of the owner's power to revoke. Mechem on Ag., Sec. 209.

Defendant signed a contract reciting a sufficient consideration by which he authorized plaintiffs, as his agents, to sell a tract of land for a stated price, and to execute a binding contract in that behalf. Afterward, defendant wrote plaintiffs that his wife refused to sign a deed for such price, stating that they might as well take the land off the market. To this plaintiff replied, in effect assenting, and asking for defendant's lowest price for the land, and stating, "When we hear from you we will see what we can do." Held, that by such letters the agency was entirely abrogated, leaving the matter at large for new negotiations between the parties. Lacey v. Thomas, 164 F. 623.

An agreement by an owner of premises, upon a valuable consideration, to extend the time within which the broker might sell, to such time as the broker could get a prospective purchaser to bind himself to buy can not be cancelled by the owner, without the broker's consent, so long as negotiations are going on between the broker and the prospective purchaser with a prospect of eventual sale within a reasonable time. Luhn v. Fordtran (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 115 S. W. 667, writ of error denied by Supreme Court. The dissolution of a partnership will operate as a revocation of the power to sell; but a mere change in the name of the firm, where the new firm is composed of the same members as the old, does not operate to revoke an agency, conferred upon it, the identity remaining the same. Mechem on Agency, Sec. 221.

Where a broker is not employed for a definite time, the employment may be revoked at will; but where he is employed for a definite time, the agency can be revoked only in accordance with some express or implied condition of its continuance. Blumenthal v. Bridges (Ark. Sup. '09), 120 S. W. 974. Under a contract of employment of a broker for a definite term, where the principal has not the right to revoke the agency directly, he cannot do so by selling the property himself. Blumenthal v. Bridges (Ark. Sup. '09), 120 S. W. 974. See Sec. 490. See also Sec. 15.

Where an agent for the owner of land employed a broker to sell at a stated price per acre, the communication by the broker of offers to buy at a less price did not revoke his contract of employment. Martin v. Crumb, 111 N. E. 62, 216 N. Y. 500, rev. judg. 142 N. Y. Sup. 1096, 158 App. Div. 228; app. to Ct. App. and rear. den. 143 N. Y. Sup. 1130, 158 App. Div. 980.

Landowner, without the broker's consent, was not entitled to cancel an agreement upon a valuable consideration extending the time within which the broker might sell, where negotiations were going on between the broker and the prospective purchaser with a prospect of success within a reasonable time. Luhn v. Ford-tram, 115 S. W. 667, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 148.

Where the owner of realty employed brokers to lease it on certain terms, and they secured a prospective lessee who submitted to the owner a draft of a lease differing materially from that authorized, the owner acted within its rights in terminating the employment of the brokers. Prendergast v. Cord Meyer Co., 156 N. Y. Sup. 750.

A land owner merely listing his property for sale with a broker does not give the broker an exclusive agency to sell, and such agency may be revoked at any time. Haggard v. King, 190 P. 763, - Kan. Sup. - . A broker's agency is not rendered irrevocable by the fact that the agent's right to sell is made exclusive. Beck v. Howard, 178 N. W. 579, - S. D. Sup. - .

In the absence of fraud defendant, owner, had the legal right to discharge plaintiff, broker, without obligation to pay for services in procuring a customer, at any time before the customer had finally and definitely accepted the terms of the agreement of conveyance presented by defendant to them. Doten v. Chase, 129 N. E. 363, - Mass. Sup. -

Notwithstanding B. and C. Comp. sec. 797, as amended by Acts 1909, p 69 (L. 0. L. sec. 808), requiring the agency of a broker to sell real estate for a commission to be in writing, authority to sell, except at a price higher than stated in the writing, may be withdrawn by parol. Peterson v. Bogner, 117 P. 805, 59 Or. 555.