A broker employed to procure a purchaser procured one who offered a specific sum, which the owner rejected; the owner made a counter-proposition which the purchaser rejected; thereafter the purchaser offered to accept the counter-proposition, but the owner then refused to sell. Held, that the broker was not entitled to his commissions, for, on the owner rejecting the purchaser's offer and making a counter offer, which the purchaser refused, the matter was at an end, and no subsequent acceptance of the counter-offer could revive it. Compare Secs. 72, 173. Bailey v. Moorhead, 122 Mo. App. 268, 99 S. W. 39; Talcott v. Mastin, 20 Colo. App. 488, 79 Pac. 973. Where an alleged purchaser replied to the offer made with a counter-proposition that could not be construed as an acceptance of any of the terms of sale made by the owner the real estate agents employed to procure a purchaser were not entitled to any commissions. Winters v. Portwood (Tex. Civ. App. '08), 109 S. W. 388.