A breach of duty to his principal deprives a broker of his right to commissions. Wilkinson v. McCullough, 196 Pa. St. 205, 79 Am. St. R. 702, 46 A. 357; Alford v. Creagh, 62 S. 254, 7 Ala. App. 358; Slagle v. Russell, 80 A. 164, 114 Md. 418; Pugh v. Christensen, 165 N. W. 294, - Wis. Sup. - . Where a broker, on his principal refusing to sign a contract of sale, himself signs it and puts it on record, this is a breach of duty and deprives the broker of his right to recover commissions. Lease v. Christy, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 507. See also Sec. 514. A broker endeavoring to sell land is bound to communicate to his principal the real facts and true situation with reference to a proposed purchase of the property. Raleigh, R. E. & T. Co. v. Adams, 145 N. C. 161, 58 S. E. 1008; Harten v. Loeffler, 31 App. (D. C.) 362; Lord v. Wapato Inv. Co., 142 P. 1172, 81 Wash. 561, aff. on re. 152 P. 329, 84 Wash. 696; Bassick v. Aetna Exp. Co., 246 F. 974; Wheeloclc v. Zevitas, 118 N. E. 279, 229 Mass. 176.

An agent having authority to sell, as a whole, both real and personal property at a fixed sum, can not, without the consent of his principal, take to himself the personal property on receiving the authorized sum from the purchaser for the real estate. Northup v. Bathrick, 80 Neb. 36, 113 N. W. 808. Ordinarily it is not the broker's duty to see that the vendor has a good title, or that he enters into an enforceable contract. King v. Enowles, 106 N. Y. S. 760, 122 App. Div. 414; Corbin v. Mer. & Trad. Bank, 106 N. Y. S. 573, 121 A. D. 744.

Where an agent, with authority to sell his principal's land, reports to another agent of the principal that he can sell so as to net the principal a certain sum, and that he is selling for a greater sum and will retain the excess as commissions, and no contract is shown that he shall receive any specified amount for his services, the agent commits no fraud by failing to disclose such amount. Deming Inv. Co. v. Meyer (Okla. Sup. '07), 91 P. 846; Fulton v. Watters, 216 Pa. 56, 64 A. 860; McKibben v. Wilson, 182 P. 638, - Kan. Sup. - . Compare Sec. 456. The employment of a sub-agent is not ordinarily a breach of duty to the principal. Nodler v. Pozorski, 124 Wis. 477, 102 1ST. W. 892. There is no duty devolving upon a broker to tell his principal of other lands he has listed with him for sale. Gaty v. Sack, 19 Mo. App. 470.

All agreements between a real estate agent or broker and a proposed purchaser touching the subject-matter of his employment, which are not disclosed to his principal should be scrutinized closely and if not found compatible with entire integrity and good faith toward his principal, they will defeat the agent's claim for commission. Hobart v. Sherburne, 66 Minn. 171, 68 N. W. 841; Skinner v. Danville (Fla. Sup. '09), 49 S. 125; Clark v. Hubbard, 44 Pa. Super. Ct. 37. See also Secs. 291, 314, 320. Agency for both principals is forbidden, unless both, with full knowledge thereof, consent. Bates v. Copeland, McArthur & M. (D. C.), 50; Alexander v. N. W. Chr. Uni., 57 Ind. 466; Lloyd v. Colston, 5 Bush (Ky.), 587; Raisin v. Clark, 41 Md. 158; Follans-bee v. O'Reilly, 135 Mass. 80; Honvitz v. Pepper, 128 Mich. 688, 87 N. W. 1034; Friar v. Smith, 120 Mich. 411, 79 1ST. W. 633, 46 L. R. A. 229; Leathers v. Canfield, 117 Mich. 277, 75 N. W. 612, 45 L. R. A. 33; Scribner v. Collar, 40 Mich. 375; Dartt v. Somnesym, 86 Minn. 55, 90 N. W. 115; Be Steiger v. Hollington, 17 Mo. App. 382; Pugsley v. Murray, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 245; Dunlap v. Richards, 2 E. D. Smith, 181; Watkins v. Consell, 1 E. D. Smith, 65; Brierly v. Connelly, 64 N. Y. S. 9, 31 Misc. 268; Norman v. Reuther, 54 N. Y. S. 152, 25 Misc. 161; Rowe v. Stephens, 53 N. Y. 621; Geery v. Pollock, 44 N. Y. S. 673, 16 App. Div. 321; Abel v. Disbrow,

44 N. Y. S. 573, 15 App. Div. 536; Lansing v. Bliss, 33 N. Y. S. 310, 86 Hun, 205; Whitney v. Saunders, 49 N. Y. S. 1016,

22 Misc. 539; Tricks v. McKenna, 101 N. Y. S. 317, 115 App. Div. 701; Haviland v. Price, 26 N. Y. S. 757, 6 Misc. 372; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. C. 67, 40 S. E. 850; Maxwell v. West,

23 Pa. Super. Ct. 302; Linderman v. McKenna, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 409; Meyer v. Hanchett, 43 Wis. 246.

Where plaintiff was employed by defendant to sell certain city property, and effected an exchange of real estate with one P; after the transaction was completed P paid plaintiff $100 for his services, although he testified he had not previously employed him. Held, there being no charge of bad faith, that if defendant had employed plaintiff to sell his property, and he had procured a sale and exchange of the same upon terms satisfactory to defendant, he was entitled to a fair compensation for his services. Campbell v. Yager, 32 Neb. 266, 49 N. W. 181.

An agent who disregards his obligations to his principal can not recover compensation. Jansen v. Williams, 36 Neb. 869, 55 N. W. 279; Hardy v. Sheedy, 113 P. 1133, 58 Or. 195; Alford v. Creagh, 62 S. 254, 7 Ala. App. 358; Neal v. Bloomfield, 166 I11. App. 402; Dice v. Wallace, 190 I11. App. 493; Bracken v. Jackson, 140 N. W. 892, 159 Iowa, 424; Maden v. Brown, 169 I11. App. 456; Richardson v. Wilson, 178 S. W. 566, - Tex. Civ. App. - . No legal duty rests upon a broker to learn facts affecting the value of lands received in exchange, and for misrepresentation made in good faith, where the principals make the contract. Coe v. Ware, 40 Minn. 404, 42 N. W. 205. The violation of instructions to deliver daily receipts of money received, is a breach of duty which warrants the principal in terminating the agency. Macferran v. Gallinger, 210 Pa. St. 74, 59 A. 435; Featherstone v. Trone, 82 Ark. 381, 102 S. W. 196. It is the duty of a broker to bring the minds of the vendor and purchaser to an agreement to entitle him to commissions. Barnard v. Monarch, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 440, 1 Abb. Dec. 108, 3 Keyes, 203. See also Sec. 33.

Where a broker, after securing a customer, made a contract with the latter to sell the land at an advance and did so, his right passing to an assignee. Held, that this was not antagonistic to his first principal, and did not preclude him from recovering the commissions promised. Einsland v. Grimshawe (N. C. Sup. '07), 59 S. E. 1000. Evidence that a broker, on the prospective purchaser saying that the property ought to be bought for $2.50 per acre less, said that would be enough, does not conclusively show that he was not honestly trying to sell. Lewis v. Susmilch, 130 Iowa, 203, 106 N. W. 624. A broker guilty of bad faith forfeits his right to commissions. Bunn v. Reach, 214 I11. 259, 73 N. E. 419; Woolf v. Sullivan, 128 I11. App. 62, affim'd 224 I11. 509, 79 N. E. 646; McDonald v. Maltz, 94 Mich. 172, 53 N. W. 1058; Wood v. Palmer, 151 Mich. 30, 115 N. W. 242, 14 D. L. N. 963; Low v. Woodbury, 95 N. Y. S. 336, 107 App. Div. 298. Good faith is not shown by the broker clandestinely also representing the opposite party. Perkins v. Underhill, 103 N. Y. S. 25, 118 App. Div. 170.