Where a broker reports an offer for property to his principal, without stating by whom the offer is made, and afterwards a sale of the same property is effected through another broker at the same price first reported and to the same purchaser and he receives a commission therefor, the first broker can not recover in an action against the vendor for the commissions, unless it appears that the latter at the time of the sale was aware of the facts above stated, or that notice of the same was given by the broker before the completion of the contract with and payment of commissions to the second broker. Tinge v. Moale.

25 Md. 480; Jungblut v. Gindra, 118 N. Y. S. 942; Soule v. Daring, 87 Me. 365, 32 A. 998. Compare Sec. 581.

Securing a purchaser whose name is concealed from the owner of the property is insufficient to entitle the broker to commissions. Hayden v. Grillo, 35 Mo. App. 647; Sharpley v. Moody, 44 S. 650, 152 Ala. 549; Nance v. Smythe, 118 Tenn. 349, 99 S. W. 698; Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Ma. 346, 45 S. 1011; Duclos v. Cunningham, 102 N. Y. 678, 6 N. E. 790; Mott v. Minor, 106 P. 244, 11 Cal. App. 774; Adams v. Kerfoot, 189 I11. App. 211; Gilbert v. McCullough, 125 N. W. 173, 146 Iowa, 333; Edwards v. Laird, 134 P. 364, 22 Cal. App. 398; Henry v. Harker, 118 P. 205, 61 Or. 276, judg. aff. on re. 122 P. 298, 61 Or. 276; Ebert v. Haskell, 104 N. E. 556, 217 Mass. 209. Compare But-man v. Butman, 213 I11. 104, 72 N. E. 821; Hovey v. Aaron, 113 S. W. 718, 133 Mo. App. 573.

The task of a broker is to find a purchaser, and he is not under any obligation to disclose to his principal the purchaser. Bassick v. Aetna Explo. Co., 246 F. 974.

Where an agent does not disclose his agency and name his principal, he becomes himself principal, unless the fact of the agency is otherwise known to the other party. Wheeler v. Reed, 36 I11. 81; Milliken v. Jones, 77 I11. 372; Warren y. Dickson, 27 I11. 115; Merrill v. Wilson, 6 Ind. 416; Pierce v. Johnson, 34 Conn. 264; McClellan v. Parker, 27 Mo. 162; Royce v. Allen, 28 Vt. 234.

A contract for the sale of real estate, made between the owner and a firm of real estate brokers with whom the owner has listed the property for sale is valid and enforceable, where there was no fraud or deception practiced, and the brokers fairly stated to the owner the fact that they did not purchase for themselves, but on an order from another broker for a principal whose name they were not at liberty to disclose. Woodward v. Davidson, 150 Fed. 840; reversed, on another ground, 156 Fed. 915; Grun-blatt v. Fox, 59 Pa. Super. Ct. 53.

A real estate broker, having a customer desirous of purchasing property of a particular character, need not, before entering into negotiations to secure the agency from the seller to procure a purchaser, disclose the facts to the owner that he has a customer and that he will probably effect a sale, no relation of agency existing between the broker and the customer. Larson v. Thoma (Iowa Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 1059.

Agent concealing greater price obtained, bound to pay excess withheld to his principal. Borst v. Lynch, 110 N. W. 1031, 133 Iowa, 567; Babcock v. De Mott, 160 F. 882, 88 C. C. A. 64, cer. den. 29 Sup. Ct. 690, 212 IT. S. 582, 53 L. Ed. 660.

Where an agent for the sale of land, without the knowledge of the principal, procures a third person to assist in the sale for a portion of the commission, such third person can not himself purchase the land and turn it over to another at an advanced price. Fisk v. Waite, 99 P. 283, 53 Or. 142.

An owner employed a broker to procure a purchaser of land for $2,800 and agreed to employ no other agent. The broker submitted an offer of $2,700, without disclosing the name of the proposed purchaser. The offer, after some delay, was rejected. The broker was then informed that because of recent repairs the price was $2,875. Subsequently the proposed purchaser raised his offer to $2,800, and the broker submitted it, without disclosing the name. Subsequently the owner conveyed the property to the proposed purchaser for $2,800, in pursuance of negotiations conducted by another agent; the owner did not know that the proposed purchaser had been procured by the broker. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions, he being in fault in not giving the name of the proposed purchaser to the owner. Gilbert v. McCullough, 125 N. W. 173, 146 Iowa, 333.

Where negotiations for the sale of land were broken off for want of an acceptable offer, and not to save commissions, and owner, in subsequently making sale, did not know that purchaser was acting for the person procured by the broker, broker held not entitled to commission. Treacy v. Gilman, 171 S. W. 153, 161 Ky. 513.

Where the owner of real estate, which he has listed with an agent for sale for a definite period, sells the same to one who was induced to purchase it by the efforts of the agent, but in good faith and in ignorance of those efforts, and for a consideration less than given the agent, he is not, there being no exclusive agency, liable for a commission agreed to be paid for the production of a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy. Quist v.

Goodfellow, 110 N. W. 65, 99 Minn. 509, 8 L. E. A. (N .S.) 153, 9 Ann. Cas. 431.

(The following cases express the opposite doctrine):

Where a broker is employed to procure a purchaser, and he is the procuring cause, he can not be deprived of his commission merely because the owner making the sale did not know that the broker had procured the purchaser. Single v. Russell, 80 A. 164, 114 Md. 418.

Recovery of commissions by a broker is not dependent upon knowledge of his principal that the buyer came to purchase in consequence of information obtained through the broker. McLaughlin v. Campbell, 74 A. 530, 78 N. J. Law, 541.

A broker who, by directing attention to property, interests a party who refuses to negotiate through him, is not entitled to a commission if the principal, in good faith, thereafter negotiates a contract on the direct application of such party. Lord v. U. 8. Transp. Co., 128 N. Y. Sup. 451, 143 App. Div. 437.