A broker who negotiated with one person, who called the attention of another to the property, and that other bought from the vendor, or through another broker, is not entitled to commissions; to be entitled to commissions he must be the procuring cause and not merely a cause ot causes. Baumgarth v. Hayne, 54 I11. App. 496; Gleason v. Nelson, 162 Mass. 245, 38 N. E. 497; Vandyke v. Walker, 49 Mo. App. 381; Burk-holder v. Fonner, 34 Neb. 1, 51 N W. 293; Johnson v. Seidal, 150 Pa. St. 396, 24 A. 687. See also Sec. 69.

Under somewhat similar circumstances, in another State, a broker was held entitled to recover commissions. Lincoln v. McClatchie, 36 Conn. 136. See also Carnes v. Finnegan, 198 Mass. 128, 84 N. E. 324.

In the case of Gleason v. Nelson, 162 Mass., the court, referring to the Connecticut case, observes that the broker in that case, "advertised the property; A. saw the advertisement, conferred with the broker, and went and told his friend B., in whose behalf he felt an interest, and B. bought the property.

It was held that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale and so was entitled to his commission." But, "where there has been no direct communication between the broker and the purchaser, it must be shown affirmatively that the latter was induced to enter into the negotiation which resulted in the purchase through the means employed by the broker for that purpose. If the broker merely talked about the property with different persons, and one of them of his own accord, and not acting in behalf of the broker, mentioned to another that the property was for sale, and such last mentioned person thereupon looked into the matter and finally became the purchaser, the agency of the broker in inducing the sale was not sufficiently direct to entitle him to a commission." (162 Mass. 249-250.) See the next Section.

Where a real estate broker employed to procure a building site for a corporation directed the attention of the corporation to a site which the corporation subsequently purchased at a price less than that stated by the broker, and the negotiations resulting in the purchase were brought about by the broker's disclosure of the property, he had earned his commission; but if the property, as disclosed by the broker, was not satisfactory to the corporation, and the broker's disclosure did not result in negotiations leading to the purchase, or the negotiations began as a result of a disclosure, without pointing to the ultimate purchase, was due to the acts of another, the broker could not recover commissions. Murphy v. Knights of Columbus Building Co., 135 S. W. 446, 155 Mo. App. 649.

Where an agent failed to get his offer within the terms of his authorization, and the purchaser afterwards buys the same piece of property on the same or less terms than those on which the first agent had authority to sell, the chain of causation would be broken. Crain v. Miles, 134 S. W. 52, 154 Mo. App. 338.