Where one wrote across a draft "accepted" in the name of his principal, by himself as agent, but which acceptance, though authorized in fact, did not in law bind the principal, it was held that unless the agent used the name of his principal without authority in fact, he could not be held personally bound. Walker v. Bank of State of N. Y., 5 Seld. (N. Y.) 582; Duncam v. Niles, 32 I11. 532. Where defendant wrote plaintiff offering to pay him ten per cent. commissions for sales of land made for defendant at a specified price to persons obtained by plaintiff that defendant had no agreement with, and plaintiff immediately began to search for purchasers whom he succeeded in procuring, his acts constituted a sufficient acceptance of the offer. Brown v. Smith, 113 Mo. App. 59, 87 S. W. 556. The performance of work by real estate agents in pursuance of an employment to sell land, when at once brought home to the knowledge of their employer, is an acceptance of the contract of employment. Arnold v. Nat. Bk. of Waupaca, 126 Wis. 362, 105 N. W. 828, 3 L. R. A. N. S. 385. When a party submits to another, through the mail, a proposition of purchase or sale, the receiver of the proposition has the right, within a reasonable time and before it is withdrawn, to accept by a writing deposited in the postoffice, duly stamped, ready for carriage and delivery, and such an acceptance binds the proposer of the contract from the time the deposit is made in the postoffice, whether it be delivered or not. Scottish American

Mtge. Co. v. Davis, 96 Tex. 504, 74 S. W. 17, 18; Dotson v. Mil-likean, 27 App. D. C. 500, judg. aft, 28 Sup. Ct. 489, 209 U. S. 237, 52 L. Ed. 768. Where an owner of real estate asks a real estate broker "to get a deal," it is not necessary for the real estate broker to assent in words, if he procures a purchaser he makes a contract by performance. Lamb v. Prettyman, 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 190. Where defendant sent to plaintiff a power of attorney for the sale by him as agent of defendant's real estate, if an acceptance was necessary it was accepted by a letter from plaintiff stating that he had a buyer for the place and that he would leave on a day named with him, for the purpose of looking through the property. Luckett Land & Em. Co. v. Brown, 118 La. 943, 43 S. 628.

The mere approval of a contract by a broker, where it substantially differs from that which he was employed to make, can not of itself be held to be an acceptance of performance of the broker's obligations. Rieger v. Bigger, 29 Mo. App. 421.

In an action by the grantor of realty to set aside a sale, on the ground that the agent employed by her to procure a purchaser, in fact purchased the property, while she thought the sale was being made to another, it appeared that the agent had induced her to sign a contract of purchase with such other party, the agent agreeing to execute with the other a bond accompanying a mortgage which was to be given to the grantor; subsequently a deed was given running to the agent; the bond was signed by the agent and the other, and the mortgage, signed by the agent alone, was kept by him for the purpose of record; after the grantor learned that the deed ran to the agent she informed him, on the payment of the interest on the purchase money mortgage given by him, that she would put the money in bank until she got her property back, and stated that she was going to see a lawyer. Held, that the acceptance of the money did not constitute a ratification of the transaction. Clark v. Bird, 72 N. Y. S. 769, 66 App. Div. 284. See also Sees. 458, 618.

A broker wrote the owner of certain property asking if he would give him a short time, say thirty days, in which to effect a sale at a stated price on the usual commission basis, to which the owner replied that the broker had made a mistake as to the price, which was $5,000, and then added that he was not anxious to sell, but might consider a cash offer. Held, not an acceptance of the broker's offer of his services so as to constitute a contract of employment, under the rule that to constitute a contract the acceptance must agree with and be in the same terms as the offer. Henry v. Barker, 118 P. 205, 61 Or. 276, judg. aff. on re., 122 P. 298, 61 Or. 276.

Acceptance by the principal of the purchaser is conclusive that he is able, ready and willing to buy. Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636; Bailey v. Padgett, 70 S. 637, 195 Ala. 203.

Where defendant applied to plaintiff for loan "to or through" such broker, to be made within reasonable time, and both parties contemplated securing loan from Insurance Co. and plaintiff never attempted to make loan himself, defendant could repudiate application, if not accepted by Insurance Co. within reasonable time. Calvin Phillips & Co. v. Newoc Co., 172 P. 355, - Wash. Sup. - .

Where broker prepared a contract to sell land, which required that certain party was to pay his commission, the execution of such contract was a sufficient acceptance thereof by the broker. Eickmeier v. Geddes, 126 N. E. 850,' - Ind. App. - .

Acceptance by the seller of a purchaser furnished by the broker dispenses with the necessity of the broker showing, in an action for commissions, that the purchaser was able, ready and willing to buy, since the acceptance is taken as a conclusive admission of that fact. De Briere v. Yeend Bros. Realty Co., 86 S. 528, - Ala. Sup. - .