An agreement between the owner of real estate and an agent whereby the latter was appointed to collect rents, make necessary improvements, keep the property insured, pay the taxes and the expenses that might become necessary with a view to procuring purchasers, and to receive for compensation a specified per cent. of the amount collected, did not constitute him an agent with authority to procure a purchaser of the property. Heim v. Ashton, 121 Iowa, 265, 96 N. W. 745.

A contract made by a broker to procure, for a compensation, certain property for a purchaser, is not within the statute for offering real estate for sale, requiring that the broker should have written authority from the owner of the property. Friedman v. Buitker, 91 N. Y. S. 896, 45 Misc. 178.

Where a land-owner employed the plaintiff to find a purchaser on terms whereby a certain cash payment was to be made and a mortgage given, and on producing the proposed purchaser the plaintiff offered to pay the whole of the purchase money, if the land-owner was not satisfied with the purchaser's ability to make the deferred payments when they fell due, it was held that such offer did not remove the objection of inability of the purchaser to perform the contract, as it amounted to a proposal to vary the terms of the proposed sale. Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 231, 96 S. W. 228. Compare Ricke v. Post, 110 N. Y. S. 79, 125 App. Div. 607.

So, where a broker sought to recover commissions for finding a purchaser for defendant's real estate, a showing on the part of plaintiff that he produced a person willing to take the property at defendant's price, on condition that the plaintiff furnished or procured the necessary money, and that plaintiff had promise of a loan to enable him to do so, did not show performance on the part of plaintiff. McCune v. Badger, 126 Wis. 186, 105 N. W. 667.

Where a broker made active efforts to effect a purchase for his employer, but another broker first procured a satisfactory offer of sale, the first broker was not entitled to any commissions. Friedman v. Polstein, 97 N. Y. S. 1032, 49 Misc. 644. In the absence of a special contract a broker is not entitled to a commission on merely bringing a purchaser, who was ready, willing and able to pay the price demanded, where no sale was made, because of a disagreement as to when the transfer should take place. Haase v. Schneider, 98 N. Y. S. 587, 112 App. Div. 336. See also Sec. 33.

A real estate agent does not produce purchasers willing to execute the contract on the terms prescribed so as to be entitled to a commission, where they insist upon more onerous terms than those originally agreed upon, and on denial thereof refuse to buy. Weiss v. Robinson, 98 N. Y. S. 429, 112 App. Div. 276. See also Sec. 33.

In an action by a broker for commissions for procuring a purchaser, it appeared that the person procured by the broker entered into a contract with the owner which stipulated for a sale of the real estate for a specified sum and two mortgages, and required the closing of the contract at a subsequent date; the parties failed to close the contract because of the existence of a third mortgage on the premises. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions; the person procured by him having no right to refuse to enter into a contract for the purchase of the property subject to two mortgages only, where the owner was able to perform the contract when the time for the passing of the title arrived. Shapiro v. Nadler, 99 N. Y. S. 879, 51 Misc. 13. See also Sec. 33.

Where a broker was employed to procure a purchaser, or one willing to exchange properties, his contract was performed when he procured a purchaser able and willing to purchase or exchange, and the fact that the broker made material misrepresentations as to the property exchanged for his client's was no bar to his recovery of his commissions, as the agent performed his contract when he brought the parties together, and they, themselves, concluded the trade. Nichols v. Whitacre, 112 Mo. App. 692, 87 S. W. 594. See Sec. 475. A broker employed to sell land on commission has a right to give a part of the commissions to the purchaser. Stephens v. Tomlinson (Tex. Civ. App. '05), 88 S. W. 304.

Where the plaintiff, in an action for the breach of a contract to sell real estate for the purchase of which he entered into a contract with the agent, knew, as did also the agent, the terms on which the defendant would sell, but chose to enter into a contract contrary thereto, he is not entitled to recover. Fleming v. Burke, 122 Iowa, 433, 98 N. W. 288. See also Sec. 307. Where a real estate agent claims compensation for securing the attendance of a purchaser at a public land sale, he must at least show that he had some effect upon the purchaser's attendance. Perkins v. Underhill, 103 N. Y. S. 25, 118 App. Div. 170.

In Nebraska, to entitle a broker to recover on a purchase of real estate, it is necessary that he procure a valid conveyance of the real estate or an enforceable contract for a sale. Bolton. v. Coburn., 78 Neb. 731, 111 N. W. 780, 782. Where the owner of property employed a real estate broker to find a purchaser, the mere fact that the prospective purchaser found by him afterward notified him that she did not intend to purchase did not deprive him of his right to compensation, where she actually purchased the property within two or three months thereafter. Groscup v. Downey, 105 Md. 273, 65 A. 930. Compare Sallee v. McMurray, 113 Mo. App. 253, 88 S. W. 157.

The rule that even if a purchaser knows that the party selling is a broker, and there is reason to believe that he is selling for some principal, yet if such broker does not bind his principal by the form of the contract made, and does bind himself thereby, he may be held to the liability of a vendor; held, applicable to the liability of an agent for commission under a contract with a broker for the sale of his principal's real estate. Nudelman v. Haffenberg, 199 I11. App. 463.