If a broker has had a reasonable time to find a purchaser, the principal may, in good faith, revoke the employment without incurring liability. Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251, 26 P. 906; Collier v. Johnson, 23 Ky. L. R. 2453, 67 S. W. 830; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 186 Mass. 7, 70 N. E. 1033, 66 L. R. A. 982; Jayne v. Drake (Miss. Sup. '06), 41 S. 372; Kolb v. Bennett, 74 Miss. 567; Turner v. Snyder, 132 Mo. App. 320, 111 S. W. 858; Loving v. Hesperian C. Co., 176 Mo. 330, 75 S. W. 1095; Miller v. Wehrman (Neb. Sup. '08), 115 N. W. 1078; Slater v. Holt, 10 N. Y. St. 257; Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119; Simpson v. Carson, 11 Oregon, 361, 8 P. 325; Newton v. Conness (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 106 S. W. 892; Evans v. Gay, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 74 S. W. 575; Knox v. Parker, 2 Wash. 34, 25 P. 909; Rowan v. Hull, 55 W. Va. 335, 47 S. E. 92; Cronin v. American Securities Co. (Ala. Sup. '09), 50 S. 915; Friedenwald v. Welsh, 140 N. W. 564, 174 Mich. 399; Martin v. Jeffries, 172 S. W. 148, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Wolber v. Chambers, 128 I11. App. 624; West v. Kirby Lumber Co., 193 S. W. 172, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Harris v. Morton & Co., 107 N. Y. Sup. 80, 101 Miss. Rep. 398; Schifflin v. Smith, 203 S. W. 849, - Ark. Sup. -; Armstrong v. Lounsberry, Simmons & Co., 173 N. W. 890, - Iowa Sup. -; Roth v. Thompson, 180 P. 656, - Cal. App. -; U. S. Farm Loan Co. v. Darter, 183 P. 696, - Cal. App. -; Nichols & Jackson v. Carson, 220 S. W. 297, - Tex. Civ. App.

-; Beck v. Howard, 178 N. W. 579, - S. D. Sup. -; Tulman v. Gibson, 192 P. 1033, - Cal. App. - .

A principal revoking the agency must act in good faith, and not for the purpose of evading liability for the broker's services. Bailey v. Smith, 103 Ala. 641, 15 S. 900; Uphof v. Ulrich, 2 I11. App. 399; Beeler v. Cresswell, 3 Md. 196; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 186 Mass. 7, 70 N. E. 1033, 66 L. E. A. 982; Alien v. Earle, 56 N. Y. Super. Court, 366, 4 N. Y. S. 548; Neal v. Lehman, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 34 S. W. 153; Peach River Lumber Co. v. Montgomery (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 115 S. W. 87; Lanx v. Hoge,

123 P. 949, 45 Mont. 445; Bodine v. Penn Lumber Co., 194 S. W. 226, - Ark. Sup. -; Bradley v. Blandin, 100 A. 920, 91 Vt. 472; Calhoun v. Dunnson & Gay, 97 S. E. 885, - Ga. App. -; J. G. Wright & Son v. Shepard, 100 S. E. 587, 178 N. C. 656; Williamson R. E. Co. v. Sasser, 103 S. E. 73, - N. C. Sup. - . If the broker has found a responsible purchaser before the receipt of the notice of revocation, the principal will be liable on his contract for commissions. Tilden v. Smith (S. D. Sup. '10),

124 N. W. 841; Montgomery v. Ainslie (Tex. C. A. '09), 122 S. W. 307; Cadigan v. Crabtree, 186 Mass. 7, 70 N. E. 1033, 66 L. E. A. 982; Reishus-Remel Ld. Co. v. Benner, 91 Minn. 401, 98 N. W. 186; Canadian Imp. Co. v. Cooper, 161 Fed. 279; Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636; Weisells-Gerhart R. E. Co. v. Epstein, 137 S. W. 326, 157 Mo. App. 101; Maddox v. Harding, 135 N. W. 1019, 91 Neb. 292; Roach River Lumber Co. v. Montgomery, 115 S. W. 87, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 487; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar, 128 S. W. 20, 148 Mo. App. 353; Merkeley v. Fish, 178 P. 945, - Cal. Sup. -; Edwards v. Dana, 178 P. 407, - Kan. Sup. -; Beck v. Howard, 172 N. W. 577, - S. D. Sup. -; Jenkins v. Kay, 224 S. W. 1028, - Mo. App. - . Power to revoke must be distinguished from the right to revoke. Mechem on Ag., See. 209; Lord v. Wapato Inv. Co., 142 P. 1172, 81 Wash. 561; judg. aff'd on re. 152 P. 327, 84 Wash. 696.

Where the only instructions given to an agent are that he shall visit a certain addition, sell some lots and pay the sum demanded as part of the price, without any limitation upon his discretion, the principal can not rescind any contract made by the agent for the purchase of lots, or recover any sum paid on account thereof, unless a failure of consideration, a defect in the title, or other like circumstance be made to appear. Boulder Inv. Co. v. Fries, 31 P. 174; 2 Colo. App. 373. An agency coupled with an interest is, within the time stated, irrevocable. Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa, 703, 87 N. W. 414; Stamets v. Denni-son, 193 Pa. St. 548, 44 A. 575. The death of the principal or a partial destruction of the subject-matter works a revocation. Cox v. Bowling, 54 Mo. App. 289. Also the principal's disposition of his interest in the subject-matter of the agency. Frazier v. Cox (Ky. Ct. App. '10), 125 S. W. 148.

A contract of agency can not, but in good faith, be revoked before the expiration of the time allotted and the principal escape liability to the broker. Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251, 26 P. 906; Glover v. Henderson, 120 Mo. 367, 25 S. W. 175; Stamets v. Dennison, 193 Pa. St. 548; Randle v. Bloomfield, 142 S. W. 677, 146 Ky. 421; Myers v. Batcheller, 163 N. Y. Sup. 688; Sparks v. Crassi, 165 N. Y. Sup. 519; compare Harrison v. Angerson, 115 I11. App. 226. A broker is not entitled to commissions on a sale by the owner of real estate made in good faith after the revocation of his authority to one with whom the broker negotiated before the time expired. Zeiner v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509, 17 P. 642; Farrar v. Brodt, 35 I11. App. 617; Learned v. McCoy, 4 Ind. App. 238, 30 N. E. 717; Fultz v. Winer, 34 Kan. 576, 9 P. 316; Antisdell v. Canfield, 119 Mich. 229, 77 N. W. 944; LaForce v. Wash. Uni., 106 Mo. App. 517, 81 S. W. 209; Page v. Griffith, 71 Mo. App. 524; Gardner v. Pierce, 116 N. Y. S. 155; Beauchamp v. Higgins, 20 Mo. App. 514; Sattertwhaite v. Vreeland, 48 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 508, 3 Hun, 152; Neal v. Lehman, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 34 S. W. 153; Cardy v. Ruth, 100 N. Y. S. 1043, 115 App. Div. 568,103 N. Y. S. 1121; Newton v. Conness (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 106 S. W. 892; Siegel v. Rosenzweig, 114 N. Y. S. 179; compare Griswold v. Pierce, 86 I11. App. 406, et al., Sec. 557.

A contract of agency is revoked by a notice of the exercise of an option to purchase. Faraday Coal & Coke Co. v. Omens, 26 Ky. L. R. 243, 80 S. W. 1171. A vendee, defrauded by his agent, may rescind the contract of sale and reclaim the money paid. Kennedy v. McKay, 43 N. J. L. 288. Where defendant authorized the plaintiff to sell his farm at $50 an acre, a letter of plaintiff desiring a modification so as to sell at $48 or $49 an acre did not operate to revoke the plaintiff's first authority. Fuller v. Brady, 22 I11. App. 174. Acts of the agent after a revocatoin bind the principal as to third parties without notice. Murphy v. Ottenheimer, 84 I11. 39; Beard v. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397; Hancock v. Byrne, 5 Dana (Ky.), 514; Lamothe v. St Louis, etc., R. Co., 17 Mo. 204. After the revocation of written authority, his acts, if the writing be left in the hands of the agent, may bind the principal by the agent's exhibiting the instrument as his apparent authority to parties without notice. Beard v. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397; Story on Ag., Sec. 470.