In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the plaintiff was licensed to act as a broker will always be presumed. Munson v. Fenno, 87 I11. App. 655; Shapler v. Scott, 85 Pa. St. 329.

It is the rule in most jurisdictions that a broker who fails to procure a license to carry on his business, as required by law, is barred recovery of commissions for acting as broker. Whitfield v. Ruling, 50 I11. App. 179; Eckert v. Collot, 46 I11. App. 361; Reeder v. Jones (Del. Super. '02), 65 A. 571; Richardson v. Brix, 94 Iowa, 626, 63 N. W. 325; Yount v. Denning, 52 Kan. 629, 35 P. 207; Buckley v. Humason, 50 Minn. 195, 52 N. W. 385; Wicks v. Carlisle, 12 Okla. 337, 72 P. 377; Johnson v. Hulings, 103 Pa. St. 498; Coles v. Meade, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 334; Costello v. Goldbeck, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 158; Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230; Saule v. Ryan (Tenn. Ch. App. '99), 53 S. W. 977; Pile v. Carpenter, 118 Tenn. 288, 99 S. W. 360; Weinshenker v. Epstein, 176 I11. App. 104; Friedland v. Isenstein, 101 I11. App. 109; Fuerst v. Stone, 102 I11. App. 256.

In some of the States the courts allow the recovery of commissions by an unlicensed broker, upon the ground that the license laws are enacted purely as revenue measures, and have no effect on the rights of the parties inter se. Houston v. Bo-agni, McGloin (La.), 164; Walker v. Baldwin, 103 Md. 352, 63 A. 362; Tooker v. Duckworth, 107 Mo. App. 231, 80 S. W. 963; Prince v. Eighth St. Baptist Ch., 20 Mo. App. 332; Buck-man v. Berghold, 37 N. J. L. 437; Amato v. Dreyfus (Tex. Civ. App. '96), 34 S. W. 450; Watkins Ld. Mtge. Co. v. Thetford (Tex. Civ. App. '06), 96 S. W. 72; Ober v. Stephens, 54 W. Va. 354, 46 S. E. 195; Stiewel v. Lolly, 89 Ark. 195, 115 S. W. 1134; Smith v. Sharp, 50 S. 381, 162 Ala. 433, 136 Am. St. Rep. 52; Alford v. Creigh, 62 S. 254, 7 Ala. App. 358; Hodges v. Bayley, 143 S. W. 92, 102 Ark. 200; Harrison v. Kersey, 64 S. 353, 67 Fla. 24; Baskett v. Jones, 225 S. W. 158, - Ky. Ct. App. - .

The fact that a real estate agent had a license at the time of the action to recover commissions does not raise a presumption that he had a license two years before, at the time of the transaction. Eckret v. Collot, 46 I11. App. 361.

One who, while engaged in other business, sells land for another, may recover his commissions, though he had not taken out a license as required of real estate agents, since a single sale does not constitute the exercise of the business of real estate brokerage. O'Neill v. Sinclair, 153 I11. 525, 39 K E. 124; Boeder v. Butler, 19 Pa. Sup. Ct. 604; Jackson v. Hough, 38 W. Va. 236, 18 S. E. 575; Pope v. Beale, 108 Mass. 561; Packer v. Sheppard, 127 I11. Ap. 598. Infra, Springsteen v. Lewis, 259 F. 518.

The fact that the agent had taken out no license as a real estate agent under the internal revenue law of the United States will not affect his right to recover compensation; the sole object of that law in requiring real estate agents to take out licenses was to raise revenue; the question in such case is, whether the statute was intended as a protective measure or merely as a fiscal expedient; whether the Legislature intended to prohibit the act unless done by a qualified person, or merely, that the person who did it should pay a license fee; if the latter, the act is not illegal. Ruckman v. Bergholz, 37 N. J. L. 437.

A trust company incorporated in Pennsylvania, under an act of the Legislature, and authorized to buy and sell real estate, is not liable as a real estate broker for the license tax imposed on any individual or corporation. Commonwealth v. Real Estate Trust Co., 211 Pa. St. 51, 60 A. 551; Manke v. Tingh, 98 P. 792 (Kan. Sup. '08).

An auction sale of real property does not make the one negotiating such sale a broker within the meaning of the license act. Yedinsky v. Strouse, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 587, 42 Week. Not. Cas. 12. A receipt for license from the State Treasurer is not such a license as authorizes a real estate broker to act so as to relieve himself from penalties, and to enable him to recover commissions. Jadwin v. Hurley, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 104.

Unless it clearly appears that the Legislature intended more, it will be held that the penalty imposed by the act on a real estate agent selling property on commission, without a license, excludes all others. Ober v. Stephens, 54 W. Va. 354, 46 S. E. 195; Cobb v. Dunlevie, 63 W. Va. 398, 60 S. E. 384. A person who sells property for another under a special contract, without holding himself out to be a real estate broker, may recover though he has not complied with the act requiring real estate brokers to take out a license. Black v. Snook, 204 Pa. St. 119, 53 A. 648; Yedinsky v. Strouse, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 587, 42 W. Not. Cas. 12. Supra. Also Sec. 604.

Where a resident of New Jersey contracts with a real estate broker in Pennsylvania to sell real estate situate in New Jersey, he is not required to have a real estate broker's license under the Pennsylvania statute, to make his contract valid. Callaway v. Prettyman, 218 Pa. St. 293, 67 A. 418; Cervenka v. Hunter, 185 I11. App. 547. In an action to recover commissions on a sale or exchange of real estate, where the plaintiff describes himself in his statement of claim as a dealer in real and personal property, and in the regular course of business made the sale or exchange in question, and it is admitted that plaintiff had not taken out a license, as required by law, the statement of claim is admissible as evidence tending to show that the plaintiff is a real estate broker, and when the statement is supported by the evidence of two witnesses called by the defendant, it is error for the court to give binding instructions for plaintiff. Sprague v. Beilly, 34 Pa. Super. Ct. 332.

If a broker was duly licensed at the time he completed the negotiations for a sale of real estate, by which the purchaser leased the same with an option to purchase, the fact that the broker was not licensed at the time the purchaser elected to exercise such option was no defense to the broker's claim for commissions. Coates v. Locust Point Co., 102 Md. 291, 62 A. 625.

If it does not appear from the evidence that plaintiff was licensed to engage in or carry on the business of a real estate broker in the State where the contract is alleged to have been made, the defendant would not be entitled for this reason to a verdict, if there is nothing in the evidence to show that a real estate broker is required, under the law of that State, to have a license in order to carry on the business, and there is no averment in the pleadings that the plaintiff was acting as a licensed real estate broker in the transaction of the business in question. Richards v. Richman, 5 Penne. (Del.) 558, 64 A. 238.

While an unlicensed broker can not recover commissions for his services, he may recover for advances made in negotiating contracts for a customer, when such contracts are not prohibited or against public policy. Cutler v. Partridge, 182 I11. App. 350.

A license issued to a real estate broker in a trade name under which the broker did business; held, not to defeat his right to commissions, it appearing that he paid for the license for no one but himself or business under it, and that issuance in his individual name was therefore refused. Octinger v. Levit, 186 I11. App. 104.

An ordinance requiring a license by an employee of a broker, where he shall engage himself in the business or acting in the capacity of a broker; held, not to apply to mere employees of brokers, though they are paid a certain portion of the commissions. Thorpe v. Weber, 191 I11. App. 2.

Where a broker's license is issued to a partnership, and one of the partners succeeds to the business of the partnership upon dissolution of the firm and continues business individually, at the same location, he is to be considered a licensed broker. Fried-land v. Isenstein, 191 I11. App. 109.

An ordinance requiring licensing of brokers applies only to persons engaged in the business of brokerage as an occupation or vocation. Ross v. New South Farm & Home Co., 191 I11. App. 353.

Under Pub. Laws 1913, chap. 201, sec. 32, in relation to licenses for business of buying and selling real estate, an employee is not subject to tax, but is protected by license of his principal. Western Carolina Realty Co. v. Rumbough, 90 S. E. 931, 172 N. C. 741.

A city ordinance licensing real estate brokers does not apply to one engaged in other business who attempted as agent to dispose of oil leases held by another. Engles v. Blocker, 192 S. W. 193, 127 Ark. 385.

Where the plaintiff, an unlicensed real estate broker, on behalf of the defendant, initiated and was the procuring cause of an exchange of defendant's property for other property, which was effected after plaintiff had become a member of a firm which was duly licensed to conduct a real estate brokerage business; held, that the evidence supported a finding and judgment for the plaintiff in the action to recover commissions for effecting such exchange. Cronstedt v. McCormick, 203 I11. App. 319.

It is not necessary under the ordinance of the City of Chicago that the hired clerk of a regularly licensed real estate broker, who represents his employer in securing a lease of property for the latter should be a licensed agent. Kappes v. Bacon, 209 I11. App. 290.

That plaintiff, in an action against a real estate broker to recover on a promise to pay one-half of the commission received by defendant from customers secured by plaintiff, is not the holder of a broker's license, does not preclude him from recovering. Cross v. Strauss, 208 I11. App. 263.

Stat. 1919, p. 1252, providing for a licensing of brokers and real estate salesmen, and requiring persons desiring to engage in such business to furnish evidence of good moral character, etc., is valid, in view of the peculiar nature of the employment. Riley v. Chambers, 185 P. 855, - Cal. Sup. - .

Where one non-resident of a city engaged the services of another non-resident to sell his farm on commission, he can not avoid paying commission because the broker had not a license required by an ordinance of the city, though both the written contract to pay the broker and the contract of sale were executed within the city. Peters v. Andrews, 129 N. E. 328. - Ind. App. - .