One who negotiates a sale of land belonging to a husband and wife can not recover of the husband compensation for selling the wife's interest in the land, unless the husband agreed to pay therefor. Spangeman v. Palestine Bldg. Assn., 60 N. J. L. 357, 37 A. 723; Hansbrough v. Neal, 94 Va. 722, 27 S. E. 593. It does not follow that because the husband has charge of the wife's property and has authority to sell the same, that he is authorized to employ another to procure a purchaser. Groscup v. Downey, 105 Md. 273, 65 A. 930. See also Sec. 1022.

A husband undertaking to be bound for the commissions of the broker for effecting a sale of real estate for his wife, is personally bound whether he discloses his agency for his wife or not. Jarvis v. Schaefer, 105 N. Y. 289, 11 N. E. 634; Cofield v. McGraw & Gardner, 77 S. 981, - Ala. App. - .

In an action for commissions on a sale of land belonging to defendant, it appeared that plaintiff had sold other land for defendant and her husband several years before, and that this property was left in plaintiff's hand to sell for $50,000, and that the price was raised until finally plaintiff obtained an offer of $65,000, which was reported to defendant and her husband, and which each agreed to accept - the husband got on abstract of title and the purchaser placed checks with the plaintiff to bind the bargain - but when the time came for closing the sale defendant declined to execute the deed. Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury as to the plaintiff's employment by the defendant or by the husband as her agent. Codd v. Seitz, 94 Mich. 191, 53 N. W. 1057; Sims v. Rockwell, 156 Mass. 372, 31 N. E. 484. The refusal of the wife to join with the husband in a deed of conveyance does not protect the principal from liability for the commission earned by the broker in procuring a purchaser. Tebo v. Mitchell, 5 Pennewill (Del.), 356, 63 A. 327; Hamlin v. Schulte, 34 Minn. 534, 27 N. W. 301; Goldberg v. Gelles, 68 N. Y. S. 400, 33 Misc. 797; Clapp v. Hughes, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 382.

A man is not bound by a contract for the sale of his land made by a broker in accordance with letters and a telegram sent by his wife, who, although attending to his correspondence and the renting of his property, had no written authority to contract for him, and who sent the letters and telegram in question without informing him of their contents. Edwards v. Tyler, 141 I11. 454, 31 N. E. 312. To sustain an action for commissions a broker must show a direct employment by the principal, or a direct authority for him to treat with the agent of the principal; if the wife for her husband be relied upon special authority or ratification must be shown. Harper v. Goodall, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 288, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 161; Harrell v. Veith, 13 N. Y. St. 738. The same rule applies in the case of a wife's property. Hurd v. Lee, 116 N. Y. S. 445. Where one employs a real estate broker to find a buyer for land, which he occupies with his wife as a homestead, and the broker produces a purchaser ready and willing to take the property, the broker's claim for compensation is not defeated by the fact that the sale is prevented by the refusal of the wife to execute a conveyance. Branch v. Moore, 84 Ark. 462, 105 S. W. 1178; Staley v. Euifard, 73 Kan. 686. 85 P. 763; Carey v. Whitman,

110 Mo. App. 204, 84 S. W. 1131; Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 231, 96 S. W. 228; Kepner v. Ford (N. D. Sup. '07),

111 N. W. 619.

The same is true of the sale of other property in which the wife refuses to relinquish her right of dower. Cook v. Fryer, 3 Ky. L. R. (abst.) 612. Also, where the wife refused to sign the deed unless given half the proceeds of sale, with which demand the husband would not comply. Marlin v. Sipprell, 93 Minn. 271, 101 N. W. 169. The defendant, without authority from his wife, employed plaintiff as a broker to sell her real estate, but the written authorization to offer the property for sale was not signed by the wife or her attorney in fact, as required by the statute. Held, that as plaintiff could not have recovered against the wife by virtue of such invalid writing, even if defendant had had authority to place the property for sale, defendant was not individually liable for the breach of an implied warranty of authority. Hochbaum v. Rotter, 101 N. Y. S. 531.

A married woman, under the statutes of Indiana, has power to bind herself for the payment of a broker's services rendered in the sale of her real estate. Ispherding v. Wolf, 36 Ind. App. 250, 75 N. E. 598. A married woman, without separate estate, who in 1892 bought a farm, took title to it, enjoyed its fruits for seven years, and then sold it and received the purchase money, can not escape liability upon her written promise to pay for the land and the personal property which was appended thereto, on the ground that the obligation was not binding upon her, and that, without any offer to return either the property or the proceeds of the sale. Crosby v. Waiters, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 559.