An admission by an executor, in an action for commissions for procuring a purchaser of testator's land, that he was the executor and trustee under a will is not sufficient to show that he was authorized to sell the land. Guthman v. Meyer, 63 N. Y. S. 971, 31 Misc. 810. An agreement to buy land, entered into by one of two executors for himself and his co-executor, is not binding, since the power of an executor can not be delegated. Wilson v. Mason, 158 I11. 304, 42 N. E. 134; Lendon v. Bidell, 78 S. E. 410, 140 Ga. 74; Smith v. Peyot, 94 N. E. 882, 201 N. Y. 210; rev. judg. 118 N. Y. Sup. 1143, 134 App. Div. 954; aff'g judg. 116 N. Y. Sup. 543.

A promise made by an administrator to a broker to compensate him for selling land, followed by a sale to a customer introduced by the broker, is a personal contract disconnected from the ownership of the land sold. Moore v. Daiber, 92 Mich. 402, 52

N. W. 742; Hickman-Coleman Co. v. Leggett (Cal. App. '09),. 100 P. 1072.

Where the owner of an interest in a mine agreed to pay an agent a certain commission for selling the same, and a prospective purchaser was secured who took an option on the interest for a fixed period, the owner depositing a deed in escrow; before the expiration of the option the owner died and the deed, on the failure of the party to exercise his option, was returned to the administrator; subsequently the party who had held the option purchased the interest from the administrator for the price previously agreed upon. Held, that the administrator was not liable for the commission agreed upon in the contract made with the decedent. Trickey v. Crowe, 8 Ariz. 176, 71 P. 965; affirmed 204, U. S. 228; Crow v. Harmon, 204 U. S. 241; affirming Harmon v. Crowe, 71 P. 1125; Enyeart v. Figard, 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 488.

Where an administrator authorized a broker to sell decedent's land, and he received the required deposit subject to return if the sale was not completed, the relation of principal and agent was established between the parties and not that of vendor and purchaser, and therefore the purchaser could recover the deposit from the administrator, on a breach of the specified conditions, and was not required to sue the broker. Melone v. Ruf-fino, 129 Cal. 514, 62 P. 93, 79 Am. St. R. 127.

Where a broker agreed with an owner of land to sell it, and that all above a certain price should be divided between them, and advised her, after a certain time, to sell below the price named, on the ground that the land was not worth more, and effected a sale after the death of the owner, for her executor, at a price which left nothing to be divided under his agreement with the decedent, a claim against the executor for commissions could not be allowed. In re French's Est., 101 N. Y. S. 734, 51 Misc. R. 457.

Under a statute requiring that an agreement authorizing an agent to sell real estate for a commission must be in writing, a real estate agent can not recover from executors, as individuals, commissions for selling property, when the contract produced consists of letters from one of the executors only, which show; that he was acting as executor and not individually. Perkins v. Cooper (Cal. Supreme '90), 24 P. 377.

"Where the will gave the executor power to sell land, and the executor entered into a contract authorizing an agent to sell a portion of the land, promising him commissions therefor, and the agent secured a purchaser to whom a conveyance was executed, the agent can maintain an action against the executor as such for his services. Ingham v. Ryan (Cal. App. '03), 71 P. 899.

Where legacies are charged on real estate and the necessity for a sale of the land is clear, commissions of a broker upon such sales should be allowed as a necessary expense of administration, on appraisal of the estate for the transfer tax. In re Rothschild's Estate, 118 N. Y. S. 654, 63 Misc. Rep. 615.

Plaintiffs and defendant were engaged in real estate business in the same office, and defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs a commission for any of the land on its list bought or taken over by him. The land of an estate listed with both parties by an executrix was subsequently advertised and sold by order of the court and bought by defendant; held, that as the executrix did not own and had no legal right to list it, defendant was not liable to plaintiffs under the agreement as to brokerage fee. Hage v. M. Sigbert Awes Co., 179 N. W. 986, - N. D. Sup. - .