Where in employing plaintiff as a real estate broker to effect a sale of land, defendant acted as the guardian of a minor and had no personal or private interest in the property, all of which was known to the plaintiff, and that he never made any contract to pay individually for making the sale, defendant can not be charged individally for a commission. Hudson v. Scott, 125 Ala. 172, 28 S. 91; Groeltz v. Armstrong, 125 Iowa, 39, 99 N. W. 128.

A guardian by fraudulent proceedings in court obtained an order and sold property inherited by his ward, and his vendee, who participated in the fraud, afterwards mortgaged the property to secure a large loan; the mortgage was made through a broker, and the mortgagee testified that the broker was defendant's agent for the service of process and for no other purpose, and that defendant dealt with him as with other brokers; the broker passed on the value of the securities, fixed the terms of the loans, subject to the mortgagee's approval, looked after the title, employed attorneys to examine the same, received the money and paid it to the mortgagors, and in letters to the mortgagee spoke of the loans as made "by us;" in negotiating the loan in question he was associated with a third person, and attorneys were employed by them who knew of such fraudulent probate proceedings, and that the proceedings were made for the purpose of showing a clear title to the mortgaged property. Held, sufficient to show that the broker was the agent of the mortgagee as to make notice of the fraud to him sufficient notice to the mortgagee to prevent the defense of good faith by it to an action by the ward to set aside such sale and mortgage as fraudulent. Dormitzer v. German Sav. & Loan Soc., 23 Wash. 132, 62 P. 862.

Where the Fairmount Park Commission of Philadelphia agreed with a broker to purchase land of his principal, the fact that the Commission had the board of viewers approve the negotiations in describing the acreage and the amount of damages, and had this report confirmed by the Court, does not affect the owner's liability to pay a commission, and especially is this the case where the owner, the guardian of an insane person, secured the approval of the court to the price to be received, subject to a designated broker's commission, and actually received the purchase money. Warnock v. Phila. Trust Co., 69 Pa. Super. Ct. 589.