Where defendant authorized plaintiff to sell real estate, agreeing to pay a commission, and in a printed form above the authorization set out particulars of the property, the selling price as $52,000 and the annual rental as $5,325, and plaintiff procured a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on defendant's terms, the price being reduced to $49,500, and the customer was accepted, and the sale fell through only because defendant had misrepresented the amount of annual rental, plaintiff was entitled to commissions. Goodman v. Hess, 107 N. Y. S. 112, 56 Misc. 482. Contra, Crockett v. Grayson, 98 Va. 354, 36 S. E. 447. Compare Sec. 183.

A real estate broker employed to procure a purchase of premises for $8,000 in cash and assumption of two mortgages, one having two years to run and the other payable in installments extending over a period of seven years, procured a purchaser who agreed with the owner for the purchase of the premises and to pay $7,900 in cash and to assume the mortgages as described; the mortgages matured a year earlier than had been represented by the owner; the purchaser insisted on a formal contract embodying the terms accordingly, and the owner refused to execute such a contract; the purchaser was able to complete the purchase. Held, that the broker was entitled to his commissions. Frank v. Connor, 107 N. Y. S. 132. See also Sec. 454.

"Where a broker, knowing of the existence of an incumbrance and contrary to his instructions executes an agreement for a sale free from incumbrances, and deceives his principal as to its contents, he can not recover commissions. Culp v. Powell, 68 Mo. App. 238. See also Sec. 183.

If an agent effects a sale of the land of his principal by false representations, or other fraud, without the authority or knowledge of the principal, the latter is chargeable with such fraud in the same manner as if he had known or authorized it. Law v. Grant, 37 Wis. 548; Farris v. Gilder (T. C. A. '09), 115 S. W. 645; Stelting v. Bank of Sparta, 117 N. W. 798, 136 Wis. 369; Adams v. Barber, 139 S. W. 489, 157 Mo. App. 370; Aranovitz v. Woolard, 152 N. Y. Sup. 11, 166 App. Div. 365. See also Secs. 99, 314, 315, 316.

Where a contract for the purchase of land accorded to the purchaser the right to "back out" on paying a forfeiture, the vendor can not recover damages from the agents on account of their having, by false representations, induced the purchaser to forfeit the contract. Hetzler v. Morrell, 82 Iowa, 562, 48 N. W. 938.

Broker not entitled to commissions for misleading purchaser so that he defaulted in carrying out his contract. Carrington v. Graves, 89 A. 237, 121 Md. 567.

Where a real estate broker fraudulently misrepresents the financial ability of the purchaser, and the principal discovers that the purchaser is unable to carry out the contract, rescinds, the broker is not entitled to a commission. Meyer v. Keating Loan & Mtge. Co., 148 N. W. 452, 126 Minn. 409.

Seller of property through real estate agent could not be bound by statements made by agency as to what disposition could be made of property after title passed out of him through agency. Columbia Sav. Bk & Trust Co. v. True, 93 S. E. 389, - S. C. Sup. - .

Where land was not sold to procured purchaser by brokers' principal, but was sold to a third party, and by third party to procured purchaser, broker can not recover commissions without showing that broker's principal, after having sold land to proposed purchaser, fraudulently conveyed it to third party as a mere blind to deprive brokers of their commissions. Lorton v. True, 216 S. W. 54, - Mo. App. - . A broker, unless given more than his ordinary powers, viz., to find a purchaser willing to purchase his principal's property on terms and conditions fixed by the principal, can not bind his principal by statements to purchasers of meaning of words in a contract, especially where there is a limited partnership between the broker and the purchasers in the. purchase, so that the representation was by one partner to another. Gile v. Tantahawa, 187 P. 323, - Wash. Sup. - .