Without an express contract providing therefor, a broker is not entitled to a commission for rendering a service for which, by the local custom, no charge is made. Conrey v. Hoover, 10 La. Ann. 437.

It was proper to instruct the jury that defendants were liable for the value of plaintiff's services, if they were of such a character and rendered under such circumstances as would indicate to a reasonably intelligent business man, that they were not performed gratuitously, and that compensation was expected, the instruction not assuming that plaintiff had rendered all the services for which he asked compensation. Miller v. Early, 22 Ky. L. R. 825, 58 S. W. 789. Whether a broker's services were rendered with expectation of reward is a question for the jury. Armstrong v. Ft. Edward, 159 N. Y. 315, 53 N. E. 1116; Darling v. Howe, 14 N. Y. S. 561, 60 Hun, 578. Where an agent informed his principal that he should charge no commissions for his services, he was held to be precluded from charging commissions during the life of the principal, though the principal had recognized the agent's right to commissions. Higginson v. Fabre, 3 Desau. (S. C.) 89. Voluntary services by a broker are mere gratuities. See Mechem on

Ag. Sec. 600; also Sec. 443.

If plaintiff brokers were not agents of lessee, but were acting for defendant lessor, who had knowledge of and received benefits of services rendered in inducing lessee to lease property, defendant would be liable, unless the dealing he had with plaintiffs, and the services performed by the latter were not such as would lead a person of ordinary understanding, under like circumstances, to believe that plaintiffs were acting for defendant and expecting to be paid therefor. Davis v. Geiger, 212 S. W. 384, - Mo. App. - .