Where plaintiff purchased property from defendant, a broker, for $7,000, upon his representation that the owner would not sell it for less than that price, when the fact was that the owner had consented to sell it for $6,500, and the broker's commission, plaintiff can recover in an action in deceit, $500, less a reasonable commission to defendant. Kice v. Porter, 21 Ky. L. R. 871, 22 Ky. L. R. 1704, 53 S. W. 285, 61 S. W. 266.

Defendant asked a real estate broker to obtain a purchaser for his farm, which the broker did, at the same time demanding large commissions, which, he said, were to be divided between him and the purchaser's broker, as the purchaser knew; this was satisfactory to defendant, but he wrote as to the commission to the purchaser, who thereupon refused to sign the contract of sale. Held, that the broker did not procure a purchaser on defendant's terms, and was not entitled to commissions. Smith v. Nicoll, 36 N. Y. S. 347, 91 Hun 173, affirmed 158 N. Y. 696, 53 N. E. 1132.

Where a real estate broker, in order to make a sale, represented that an assessment for a sewer in process of construction near the property had been paid, the owner is not liable therefor in an action for deceit, in the absence of evidence that he gave the broker authority to make such representation, it not being within the ordinary scope of his employment. Brack-man v. Leighton, 60 Mo. App. 38.

An innocent vendor can not be sued in tort for the fraud of his agent in effecting a sale; in such a case the vendee may rescind the contract and reclaim the money paid, and if not repaid may sue the vendor in assumpsit for it, or he may sue the agent for the deceit. Kennedy v. McKay, 43 N. J. L. 288.

Plaintiff employed defendant as its agent to buy a mine for not to exceed $150,000. Defendant actually bought it for $90,000, concealed the fact from plaintiff, fraudulently caused it to be conveyed to a confederate and by representing that he had bought it for $150,000, induced plaintiff to execute a contract with the confederate, agreeing to buy the mine at that price, $20,000 to be paid in cash, $90,000 in one year, and $40,000 in eighteen months; plaintiff paid the cash payment, and after obtaining a reduction of the remainder to $110,000, paid that sum also; thus, by reason of defendant's fraud paying $40,000 more than the actual price for which defendant purchased for his account. Held, that these facts alleged and found sufficiently made out a case of damages for deceit and fraud, and entitled plaintiff to a judgment recovered for $40,000. Gt. Western Gold Co. v. Chambers (Cal. Sup. '09), 101 P. 6.

A broker employed by the owner to procure a purchaser of . real estate was entitled to retain for his services the sum in excess of $10,000 realized from a sale. The broker fraudulently induced a purchaser to purchase the land for $12,500, and fraudulently induced the purchaser to sell his own land to the broker, who agreed to pay $2,527 to the owner to apply on the price of the land purchased from the owner. Held, that the purchaser, electing to rescind the contract on the ground of fraud, could not recover the $2,500 as an element of damages in an action of deceit against the broker. Gordon v. Rhodes (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 117 S. W. 1023. Certified questions answered, 116 S. W. 40. See also Sec. 607.

A contract of sale of lands between a broker and his principal held unenforceable for fraudulent representations inducing it. Merritt v. Hummer, 122 P. 816, 21 Colo. App. 568; Fishbach v. Vining, 125 P. 559, 22 Colo. App. 419.

Where a broker procured from his principal a binding agreement through the broker's misrepresentation that a third person was satisfied with the sale; held, not to make a contract of sale binding on the principal. Harrington v. Dodge, 103 N. E. 919, 216 Mass. 461.