Any one dealing with a person whom he knows to be a broker may be presumed to know, from the nature of the broker's business, that he is acting as agent for some third person. Baxter v. Doren, 29 Mo. 434. The fact that a real estate agent had been licensed for a number of years and had a license at the time of a certain trial to recover commissions in another case does not raise a presumption that he had a license at the time of the transaction for which commissions are sought to be recovered. Eckert v. Collot, 46 I11. App. 361.

The solvency and ability of the proposed purchaser to perform the obligations of his contract will be presumed until the contrary is proved. Grosse v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188, 45 N. W. 15. (This is contrary to the general doctrine.) Where a vendor accepts the purchaser proposed by the broker and enters into a contract with him, the solvency of the purchaser will be presumed, in the absence of proof. Parker v. Estabrook, 68 N. H. 349, 44 A. 484; Springer v. Orr, 82 I11. App. 558; McFarland v. Lillard, 2 Ind. App. 160, 28 N. E. 229; Grosse v. Cooley, 43 Minn. 188, 45 N. W. 15. Compare Leuschner v. Patrick (Tex. Civ. App. '07), 103 S. W. 664.

Where a contract to procure a purchaser of real estate has been continued, or the time within which a sale was to have been made is waived, without reference to the compensation of the broker, the presumption is that he is entitled to recover the sum originally agreed upon. Ice v. Maxwell, 61 W. Va. 9, 55 S. E. 899. An agency to sell real estate is presumed to continue until a sale is effected, and the burden is on the owner to rebut such presumption. Hartford v. McGillicuddy, 103 Me. 224, 68 A. 860; U. 8. Farm Land Co. v. Darter, 183 P. 696, - Cal. App. - . See also Secs. 612, 614.

In an action for procuring a loan on property, it can not be assumed, in the absence of evidence, that it was not made because of defendant's fault or because they did not have a good title. Rosenthal v. Gunn, 119 N. Y. S. 165.

A broker calling attention of purchaser to the property, exhibiting it to him, and effecting a sale; held, not required to make proof, tending to exclude all other inferences, since it will be presumed that the sale resulted from his efforts. G. L. & H. J. Gross v. Tillinghast, 86 A. 721, 35 R. I. 298.

Presumptively a broker who acted as agent for the owner in the sale of a farm was entitled to some commission. Grosswiller v. Jansen, 162 N. W. 45, - Iowa Sup. - .

Where broker's contract to sell land at $100 an acre did not authorize a sale on credit, the presumption is that the sale was to be for cash. Sanden & Huss v. Auseribus, 168 N. W. 801, - Iowa Sup. - .

Fact that broker negotiating a loan received commission from borrower does not conclusively establish that he was the agent for borrower. Stephens v. Ahrens, 178 P. 863, - Cal. Sup. - .

In a broker's action for commission, an express contract is alleged, and the complaint does not show on its face that the contract was a parol one, it will be assumed that it was in writing, as required by Comp. Laws 1917, Sec. 5817. Case v. Ralph, 188 P. 640, - Utah Sup. - .

Where plaintiff had received a deed, knowing that her name had been inserted as grantee by a real estate broker after the deed had passed out of the grantee's hands, she could not rest on the presumption created by Gen. Stat. 1913, Sec. 8425, of due execution and delivery, but was required to show that the broker had actual or apparent authority to insert her name. Hedding v. Schauble, 177 N. W. 1099, - Minn. Sup. - .