A contract whereby the obligors bind themselves to contribute certain moneys toward the purchase of land, does not constitute them partners so as to authorize one to select a trustee to take the title and execute notes for the purchase price and a deed of trust as security therefor. Ferguson v. Gooch, 94 Va. 1, 26 S. E. 397; Fish v. Waite (Or. Sup. '09), 99 P. 283. A real estate agent can not be permitted to form an arrangement with a third party to purchase the land of his principal as partners; he can not assume a position where he can speculate off his principal. Reardon v. Washburn, 59 I11. App. 161.

The fact that the partner of a purchaser produced by a real estate broker, unknown to him, attempted to buy direct from the owner and that the owner refused to sell should not deprive the broker of his commissions on a sale made to his customer, where he had no knowledge of the partner's negotiations, and the broker acted in good faith. Hartford v. McGillicuddy, 103 Me. 224, 68 A. 860. Where a real estate agent has a written contract with the owner of land to put it upon the market, advertise and sell the same, having for his interest only a share in the surplus profits arising from the proceeds of the sale of the land. Held, that the contract was one of agency and not of partnership. Durkee v. Gunn, 41 Kan. 496, 21 P. 637.

Where a firm of two members contracted to manage and sell the lots of a corporation at a town other than that at which the partners resided, the fact that the business was carried on in the town where the lots were located by only one of the partners was not a breach of the contract. Albany Land Co. v. Rickel, 162 Ind. 222, 70 N. E. 158.

The testimony of one of two brokers that the firm never received the alleged letter revoking their authority is competent to show that neither he nor his partner received it. Sayre v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 151, 5 S. 157.

Authority conferred on a partnership to sell real estate is terminated on the dissolution of the partnership. Larson v. Newman (N. D. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 202; Mechem on Ag. Sec 221. Compare Sec. 637b.

The illegality of a real estate firm agreement arising from the fact that it contemplated the representation by the firm of both parties in the transactions does not affect transactions wherein the firm represented but one party and earned commissions lawfully, and as to such commissions a partner can not withhold from his copartner his share, on the ground that the firm conducted other illegal transactions. Fryer v. Marker (Iowa Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 526.

Where a partnership was formed between a broker and another to share commissions, neither the firm nor the partners occupied the status of innocent purchaser as regards the rights of the other party to the contract, but must accept the burdens of the contract as well as its benefits. Bauer v. Crow, 221 S. W. 936, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Mutual contribution to the expense of an enterprise and sharing the profits does not prove a partnership if everything else shows an agency. Hayes v. State, 14 Ohio C. C. (N. S.) 497, aff'd w. o. 83 0. S. 490.

The use by a partnership of the words "real estate and note brokers" in their letter-heads and office sign, and in the city directory, shows that they are engaged in the sale and purchase of real property for others, rather than in buying and selling for the firm. Latta v. Kilboum, 150 U. S. 24, 4 S. C. 201.