In a contract to pay for the services of a real estate broker in "showing and advertising" land, the term "advertising" must be construed as meaning the publication of a notice in a newspaper, or otherwise, of the fact that the land is for sale. Darst v. Doom, 38 I11. App. 397.

An advertisement put upon land as for sale by an agent is insufficient to imply power in such agent to make a sale thereof, when the owner denies conferring such power. Mortimer v. Corn-well, 1 Hoffm. (N. Y.) Ch. 351. The expenses incurred by a broker in advertising and selling a client's land, are not elements of damages, in an action to recover commissions alleged to have been lost by his client's refusal to convey to the purchasers whom the broker had obtained. Burnett v. Edling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775. See also Sec. 309. A broker's advertisement which brought a purchaser, who bought from the principal, entitled the broker to his commissions. Kilboum v. King, 6 D. C. 310; Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Bell v. Kaiser, 50 Mo. 150; Anderson v. Cox, 16 Neb. 10, 20 N. W. 10; Kiernan v. Bloom, 86 N. Y. S. 899, 91 App. Div. 429; Jackson v. Car-rick, 25 Weekly Not. Cas. (Pa.), 132; Mallom v. Barrett, 192 Mass. 552, 78 N. 7. 560; Lord v. U. S. Transp. Co., 128 N. Y. Sup. 451, 143 App. Div. 437; Maloom v. Barrett, 78 N. E. 560, 192 Mass. 552.

In another case, where a sale was made by the principal to one who derived his information that the farm was for sale from the broker's advertisement, he was denied a recovery of commissions. Charlton v. Wood, 11 Heisk. (Tenn.), 19.

A real estate broker suing for commissions may testify that he advertised the land in a certain newspaper, no effort being made to prove in this manner the terms or contents of the advertisement. Yarborough v. Creager (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 77 S. W. 645.

Where a broker, noticing defendant's advertisement of his house, wrote defendant that he had prospect for such property, and requested terms, and after defendant sent the terms, such broker wrote owner of his prospects concerning the same, but was informed that the prospect was not interested; held, that where the prospect thereafter was interested in the property by an advertisement of the owner and purchased it, the negotiations being conducted between the principals, the broker was not entitled to any commission. Raynor v. Reinhard, 180 N. Y. Sup. 690.