One who undertakes to collect rents and exercise control over property occupies a fiduciary relation which forbids placing himself in antagonism to his principal with respect to such property. Grumley v. Webb, 4A Mo. 444.

In ejectment defendant claimed an equitable title; plaintiff's testator A., formerly owned the land and placed it with F. to sell, who entrusted it, with A.'s consent, to defendant; in a short time defendant wrote to F. that he had an offer, and enclosed a deed for A. to sign, with the name of the grantee omitted; on return of the deed signed and acknowledged, defendant inserted his own name as grantee and forwarded a check to F. for the price, who cashed the check and credited A.'s account; the deed was void because of the failure to insert the grantee's name before delivery. Held, that on account of the defendant's fiduciary relations to A. he took no equitable title. Burke v. Bours, 92 Cal. 108, 67 Cal. 447, 28 P. 57, 8 P. 49.

The relations between an agent for the sale of land and his principal are of a fiduciary nature, and the agent's acts in the course of his employment are governed by the same rules as those of a trustee. Butler v. Agnew (Cal. App. '08), 99 P. 395.

With respect to services to be rendered by a real estate agent employed to negotiate a sale of land, a relation of confidence exists between the agent and the owner. Ware v. Ware & Harper, 92 S. E. 961, - Ga. App. - .

The owner of certain mineral land authorized plaintiffs to sell the same for $2,000, they to receive for their services all over that amount they obtained. F. contracted with the plaintiffs to make the sale and receive half of the profits. F. thereafter formed a corporation to buy the land, representing that the price to be paid the owner was $5,000, and that he was to receive ten per cent. thereof for making a sale. A sale was made, $3,000 being paid in cash, of which plaintiffs recovered $500, and a note for $2,000 being given by the corporation to the owner of the land for the balance. Held, that F. sustained a fiduciary relation to the corporation, and it was entitled to the land for the price actually paid to the owner, and hence plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any part of the amount agreed to be paid by the note. Tagarden Bros. v. Big Star Zink Co., 71 Ark. 277, 72 S. W. 989.

A contract to pay a broker a commission; held, not to be voided by his fiduciary relations to his client, where inducing representations were not false or misleading. Lundeen v. Ottis, 128 P. 335, 164 Cal. 183.

A broker occupies a quasi fiduciary relation to his employer, and must act in good faith and disclose material matters. Cop-page v. Howard, 96 A. 642, 127 Md. 512.