A court of equity will not enforce against the owner of land a contract of sale made by his agent under authority given six years before, where the land has greatly appreciated in value meantime, and the agent, without advising his principal of such fact, made the sale for a price grossly inadequate at the time, though within the terms of the original authority. Hall v. Gambrill, 92 Fed. 32, 34 C. C. A. 190; Proudfoot v. Wightman, 78 I11. 553. Compare Sec. 762.

A broker procured to be made to himself a deed of land which he was employed to sell, the grantor intending it only as a means of carrying into effect a supposed sale to a third party, but the grantee described intended to obtain the land to his own use, and also fraudulently misrepresented the value of the consideration, which consisted of certificates of stock in mining companies. Held, that the deed was not void, but only voidable, on either ground, and that if the grantor, who soon learned the facts entitling him to a reconveyance, neglected for more than two years to do any act to avoid it, and exchanged the stocks for other stocks, he must be taken to have ratified the conveyance, and could not maintain a writ of entry to recover the land. Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551. Compare Sec. 321.

An agent sold land of his principal and took a note for the purchase money in the name of himself and his principal, and assigned it to C, who sued thereon in the names of the payees for his use and recovered judgment. Held, that the assignment by the agent passed no interest of his principal, and that equity would relieve against the judgment. Wright v. Ray, 3 Humphrey (Tenn.), 68.

Where defendant obtained authority from plaintiff to sell timber for the latter, and procured purchasers at the price named by plaintiff, but represented to plaintiff that he made the sale at a much less price, and could not get the price named by plaintiff, and thus induced plaintiff to convey the timber to the purchasers at the less price and appropriated the balance paid for the timber by the purchasers to himself, under a secret agreement with them, the transaction was a fraud on plaintiff, and he was entitled to equitable relief. Lee v. Pattillo, 105 Va. 10, 52 S. E. 696.

In an action for the breach of a contract to pay a broker a specific amount for procuring a loan on defendant's property, where defendant's refusal to accept the loan was shown, defendant may prove that the broker had agreed to pay the lender a bonus of a specified per cent. of his commission, to show the amount the broker was entitled to recover, on the equitable principle that the recovery must be confined to the actual loss. Finck v. Pierce, 103 N. Y. S. 765, 53 Misc. 554; Gatling v. Central Spar Verein, 73 N. Y. S. 765, 55 Misc. 554; McGovern v. Bennett, 146 Mich. 558, 109 N. W. 1055, 13 D. L. N. 853; Duncan v. Borden, 13 Colo. App. 481, 59 P. 60. See also Secs. 1070, 1078.

Defendant, a real estate agent, submitted to his non-resident principal an offer for certain real estate, made by a person in his employ, without stating this fact, at a time when values were rapidly appreciating, which offer was accepted by plaintiff. The alleged purchaser, finding himself unable to raise the money, conveyed to defendant, who assumed the former's liability. Held, that the conveyance would not be cancelled in the absence of proof that defendant intended to purchase his principal's property in the name of another. Bookwalter v. Lansing, 23 Neb. 291, 36 N. W. 549.

Where agents of the owner of land in contracting to sell it exceeded their authority by extending the time within which the purchaser could make a cash payment, and by receiving a sum to be held for the principal as a forfeit or payment on the purchase price, the purchaser was not entitled to specific performance of the contract. Shirley v. Coffin (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 121 S. W. 181.

Defendant M., representing that he owned or controlled certain mining claims, employed plaintiff to procure capital to purchase and operate them, whereupon complainant procured defendant L. to advance money, under a contract between M. and L. for the conveyance of the claims to a corporation which they formed, it being agreed that a portion of the stock should be issued to M. in consideration of a transfer of the claims to the corporation, and that a portion of M.'s stock so issued should be transferred to L., in payment for the money which he advanced, both M. and L. agreeing that the plaintiff should receive $50,000 of such stock for his commissions. M. in fact never purchased or conveyed any claims to the corporation with money furnished by L., but squandered such money, and no stock was issued to him therefor. Held, that, while complainant, under such facts, had a cause of action at law for his services against M. & L.. he could not maintain a bill in equity against the corporation, or either M. or L. to compel a transfer of $50,000 of the corporation's stock to him. Also held, that specific performance of M.'s agreement to convey the mining claims to the corporation could not be decreed, as it did not appear that M. had title thereto, but the contrary; and that neither Martin, nor Ryan, nor Lewis had equitable title to the stock, which belonged to the company. Ryan v. Martin, 165 F. 765.

A vendor of land who has been compelled by a decree avoiding the sale to repay the commissions paid directly to the agent by the purchaser as a part of the consideration, being entitled to recover them from the agent in assumpsit, is not entitled to relief in equity by subrogation to the rights which the purchaser had, but did not urge against the agent. Volker v. Fish (N. J. Eq. '09), 72 A. 1011.

A cause of action for commissions by a broker who procures a purchaser, making a contract with the owner stipulating for a forfeiture as liquidated damages of the partial payment in the event of the purchaser's failure to complete the contract, arises when the sale is consummated or the contract may be specifically enforced. Ramsey v. West Texas Bank & Trust Co., 155 S. W. 551, - Tex. Civ. App. - .