Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants whereby he was to have a certain commission for furnishing a purchaser for their mine; he furnished a purchaser, a sale was made, and defendant refused to pay the commission. Held, that the fact that plaintiff was employed by the purchasers to manage one of their mines, did not make him their agent in regard to the purchase, and he was not acting as agent for both parties to the contract so as to render his transaction void as against public policy. Owen v. Matthews, 123 Mo. App. 463, 100 S. W. 492. See also Sec. 454. Compare Sec. 405.

The employment of the same broker by both parties, merely to bring them together, is not against public policy, and he may recover commissions from each. McLure v. Luke, 154 Fed. 647. See also Secs. 475, 578.

A contract whereby a broker for the purchaser was to secure his commission from the vendors is not contrary to public policy, if the vendors understood that the broker was representing the purchaser. Foss v. N. Y. Cen. & H. R. R. Co., 146 N. Y. Sup. 930, 161 App. Div. 681, judg. aff., 112 N. E. 1059, 217 N. Y. 727.

An agreement between a broker employed to procure a purchaser of real estate and a prospective purchaser binding the broker not to procure any other customer, and binding the purchaser, in consideration thereof, to pay, if he purchases, to the broker, a specified commission, is contrary to public policy, and is not enforceable on the purchaser acquiring the premises. Babinowitz v. Pizer, 108 N. Y. S. 994.

Although one of the principals may have known of the double agency of the broker, and the transaction was advantageous to said principal, the act is against public policy and bars recovery of commissions. Conwell v. Smith, 142 Pa. St. 25, 21 A. 793, 12 L. R, A. 395; Chapman v. Currie, 51 Mo. App. 40; Lightcap v. Nicolai, 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 189; Sumner v. Dires-kiawicz (Conn. Sup. '09), 74 A. 906. See also Sec. 706a. A contract of the purchaser with the seller's broker to convey to the latter a part of the land bought, is unenforceable as against public policy. Smith v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 500.

A broker who is employed to exercise his abilities on behalf of his principal can not, without his principal's knowledge, agree to represent the other party to the transaction; such agreement being contrary to public policy and unenforceable, though the original principal was not injured; the agent intended no wrong, and the other party acted in good faith. Bass v. Tolbert (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 112 S. W. 1077.

Where an agent for the sale of land agrees with another, that the latter shall purchase it for their joint benefit, and conceals such sale from his principal, the contract by the purchaser to account to the agent for the profits is violative of law, contrary to public policy, and unlawful, under Civil Code, Section 1067, declaring unlawful that which is contrary to law, public policy, or good morals. Butler v. Agnew, 9 Cal. App. 327, 99 P. 395. See also Sec. 522.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser of real estate for a specified sum, on specified terms, for an agreed commission, interested a third person in the premises. The third person requested the broker to do nothing further, but to permit the third person to deal directly with the owner. The third person promised to pay the broker a commission if he purchased. The said third person subsequently purchased the premises from the owner. Held, that the broker was entitled to recover from the third person the agreed commission, for the contract did not rest on an immoral consideration, though no notice thereof was given to the owner. Siegel v. Rosenzweig, 114 N. Y. S. 179, 129 App. Div. 547.

Any money received by a broker employed to sell land from a purchaser belongs to the principal, since an agent will not be permitted to derive profit from the subject matter beyond his lawful compensation. Metschan v. Swensson (Or. Sup. '09), 99 P. 277; Messer R. E. & Inv. Co. v. Ruff, 64 S. 51, 185 Ala. 236; Harwi v. Morton, 186 P. 740, - Kan. Sup. - .

A broker who had a contract for an agency for the sale of land can not recover damages from the landowner who refused to go on, where the broker retained moneys collected from purchasers in excess of the expenses incurred and the damages he suffered by reason of loss of time. Whitcomb v. Sayer, 144 P. 922, 82 Wash. 572.

A broker to sell property has no inherent right to receive part payment or earnest money from the purchaser. Roseer v. Levi, 210 S. W. 314, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where a real estate owner fixed his own price on the property and employed a broker to secure an acceptance of his proposition merely, not the best price he could obtain, he can not require the broker to account for money received by him from the broker for the other party on a division of the latter's commissions. Law v. Ware, 238 I11. 360, 87 N. E. 308.

Under an ordinary agency for the sale of land for the highest price possible, it is contrary to public policy for an agent, without the consent of the principal, to accept compensation from the purchaser. Aikin v. Poffenberger (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 615; Keitt v. Gresham, 174 S. W. 884, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Twiss v. Herbst, I11 A. 201, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where one engages to negotiate for the purchase of land, and is informed by the principal that he desires to purchase two adjoining tracts to make one property of them, the agent can not negotiate a purchase on his own account of one of the tracts and hold it against the interest of his principal, it being sufficient that he undertook the negotiations and held a situation of trust with reference to procuring the land. Rogers v. Genung (N. J. Err. & App. '09), 74 A. 473.

In all cases the principal is entitled to the best and unbiased judgment of his agent, and public policy forbids the agent to assume a relation creating a departure antagonistic to his duty. Scott v. Kelso, 130 S. W. 612, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 163; Mass v. Tolbert, 112 S. W. 1077, 151 Tex. Civ. App. 437.

Plaintiff, a real estate broker, was employed by defendant to effect an exchange of certain real estate, and having obtained a prospective purchaser, accepted an employment by him also to effect an exchange. The exchange having been accomplished, plaintiff sued defendant for commissions, and the broker, examined as a witness for plaintiff, testified that he knew that the main question with defendant in making the exchange was to pay as little cash as possible, and that it was the witness's duty to get an exchange for defendant with the least cash payment possible; that he was also employed by the other man, and knew that he wanted all the cash he could get, and was going to pay the broker to get all the money possible for him; held, that such evidence indicated a conflict of duty on the broker's part as between the two parties to the exchange, which was contrary to public policy, and constituted a complete defense to defendant's liability for commissions. Jacobs v. Beyer, 125 N. Y. Sup. 597, 141 App. Div. 49.

It is a rule of public policy that an agent for the sale of property can not, at the same time, act as the agent for the purchase thereof, and thus become entitled to compensation from both vendor and purchaser. This rule may be waived by an express agreement between the parties, but such agreement can not be inferred either from knowledge of the fact that the rule had been violated, or from silence or failure to dissent at the time, or from all these combined. Nothing short of clear and satisfactory proof of an express agreement to waive the rule can be regarded as sufficient for that purpose. Evans v. Rockett, 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 365.

Where a broker sells property and receives an advance payment of $500 on the property, and the purchasers are unable to get a good title or to obtain specific performance, and the broker has not paid the money over to his principal, the purchasers can recover the money, regardless of the broker's right to commissions. Gosslin v. Martin, 107 P. 957, 56 Or. 281.

Where a realty broker was to receive commissions from both parties, though one knew the fact, that his contract to pay commission to broker was against public policy and void, so that note given in consideration thereof was invalid. Glenn v. Bice, 162 P. 1020, - Cal. Sup. - .

Contract whereby realty brokers having exclusive sale of land at $50 an acre permitted other brokers to sell to one of their customers if they would pay him half of all made on sale for any amount above price at which land was listed, was not against public policy, and was no violation of the broker's duty to the owner. Conway v. Burk, 171 N. W. 84, - S. D. Sup. - .