In an action by a real estate agent to recover commissions for trading defendant's house and lot, where it appears that part of the consideration to be paid by the purchaser was a horse, and that defendant objected to the price placed on it, and agreed to take it if a reduction was made, and thereafter, without notice, traded the house and lot to a third person, a verdict for plaintiff is sustained by the evidence. Tubbs v.

Mackintosh, 31 Neb. 238, 47 N. W. 854; West v. Lynch, 1 City Ct. R. (N. Y.), 225. See also Sec. 434.

One who employs a broker to negotiate a sale can not, in an action for commissions, avail himself of the objection that the customer is not able to pay for the premises, if the vendor has accepted the customer as satisfactory and has conveyed the premises to him. Travis v. Graham, 48 N. Y. S. 736, 23 App. Div. 214.

Where a principal in an exchange of properties actually receives a good title to the property conveyed to him, he can not defeat an action by his broker for commissions on the ground that his contract of sale was invalid. Schlesinger v. Jud, 70 N. Y. S. 616, 61 App. Div. 453. Compare Sec. 433.

Where the owner enters into a contract authorizing a real estate agent to sell his land on commission, within a certain time, he can not revoke the authority and escape liability to the agent, if he secures a purchaser before the time limited, as the result of efforts commenced before such revocation. Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251, 26 P. 906; Glover v. Henderson, 170 Mo. 367, 25 S. W. 175; Stamets v. Dennison, 193 Pa. St. 548, 44 A. 575; Harrison v. Angerson, 115 I11. App. 226. (There are authorities holding that the owner has power to rescind, subject to the right of the broker to bring an action for breach of the contract.)

Where a broker employed to bring about a sale of real estate, brought to the owner a responsible purchaser willing to take the premises on the terms outlined by the owner, the broker was entitled to his commissions, although the sale fell through because the owner could not give immediate possession as he had agreed to do. Putter v. Berger, 88 N. Y. S. 462, 95 App. Div. 62; Bruce v. Brake, 70 S. 273, 195 Ala. 236.

Where a broker has lands placed in his hands for sale at a certain price, and the proposed purchaser does not want the entire tract, and the broker induces an employe to purchase what remained, and the principal, to escape paying commissions, conveys the whole tract to the employe, who conveys to the purchaser the portion he desires, the latter assuming a proportionate amount of the purchase money notes, the broker is entitled to his commissions. Bogart v. McWilliams (Tex. Civ.

App. '95), 31 S. W. 434; Diamond v. Wheeler, 80 N. Y. S. 416, 80 App. Div. 58.

The principal can not defeat the broker's right to compensation by arbitrary or wanton refusal to consummate the sale. Merriman v. Wickersham, 141 Cal. 567, 75 P. 180; Phelps v. Prusch, 83 Cal. 626, 23 P. 1111; Nielson v. Lee, 60 Cal. 555; Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306; Millett v. Barth, 18 Colo. 112, 31 P. 769; Spalding v. Saltiel, 18 Colo. 86, 31 P. 486; Finnerty v. Fritz, 5 Colo. 174; Wolver v. Shandy, 66 I11. App. 42; Hecht v. Hall, 62 I11. App. 100; McGuire v. Carlson, 61 I11. App. 295; Flood v. Leonard, 44 I11. App. 113; Heaton v. Clarke, 122 Iowa, 716, 98 N. W. 597; Lewis v. Simpson, 122 Iowa, 663, 98 N. W. 508; Collins v. Padden, 120 Iowa, 381, 94 N. W. 905; Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa, 703, 87 N. W. 414; Houston v. Bo-agni, McGloin (La.), 164; Schwartz v. Yearly, 31 Md. 270; Gwinnup v. Sibert, 106 Mo. App. 709, 80 S. W. 589; Reeves v. Vette, 62 Mo. App. 440; Gaty v. Foster, 18 Mo. App. 639; Jones v. Stevens, 36 Neb. 849, 55 N. W. 251; Mooney v. Elder, 56 N. Y. 238; Barnard v. Monnott, 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y) 108, 3 Keyes, 203, 33 How. Pr. 440; Snydam v. Healy, 87 N. Y. S. 669, 93 App. Div. 396; Smith v. Smith, 1 Sweeney (N. Y.), 552; Hayne v. O'Connor, 1 Sweeney (N. Y.), 472, 41 How. Pr. 287; Simpson v. Smith, 36 Misc. 815, 74 N. Y. S. 849; York v. Nash, 42 Ore. 321, 71 P. 59; Fisk v. Henare, 13 Ore. 156, 9 P. 322; Haskins v. Lewis, 30 Ohio Cir. Ct. 603; Hunt-emer v. Arent, 16 S. D. 465, 93 N. W. 653; McLane v. Goode (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 68 S. W. 707; Magill v. Stoddard, 70 Wis. 75, 35 N. W. 346; Koch v. Emmerling, 63 U. S. (22 How.) 69; Greenwood v. Burton, 27 Neb. 808, 44 N. W. 28; Bond v. Webster, 128 Wis. 118, 107 N. W. 23; Witherell v. Murphy, 147 Mass. 417, 18 N. E. 215; Herrick v. Maness, 127 S. W. 394, 142 Mo. App. 399; Chandler v. Gaines-Ferguson Realty Co., 224 S. W. 484, - Ark. Sup. - .

After notice that the broker has a customer, the principal can not sell to another, and thus escape the payment of the commission. Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306; Showaker v. Kelly, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 390; Sullivan v. Hampton (Tex. Civ. App. '95), 32 S. W. 235; Frinck v. Gilbert (Wash. Sup. '09), 101 P. 1088. But see where principal refused offer and sold to same party for twice as much, and broker was held not entitled to commissions. Gardner v. Pierce, 116 N. Y. S. 155. See Sec. 15.

The refusal of the wife to join in a deed of conveyance is insufficient to excuse the husband and principal for failing to carry out the sale so as to defeat the broker's right to a commission for finding a purchaser. 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. The same rule was applied where the sale failed because the husband and wife could not agree as to a division of the purchase money. Purdy v. Wilson, 130 Mo. App. 150, 108 S. W. 1124.

Where a broker found a purchaser his agency closed, and his afterwards taking a retainer from the purchaser to see that the papers were properly executed presented no ground for defeating a recovery of his commissions. Short v. Millard, 68 I11. 292. See also Sec. 559.

While an agency for the sale of a certain lot was terminated by a sale of the property to one with whom the agent had commenced negotiations, this did not defeat the agent's right to his commissions. Sylvester v. Johnson, 110 Tenn. 392, 75 S. W. 923. Compare Sec. 449.