An action by a real estate broker for commissions will not lie until he has effected or procured a sale. Mueller v. Bell (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 117 S. W. 993. (Compare, when employed to procure at purchaser.) Bradley v. Bower (Neb. Sup. '04), 99 N. W. 490. And a complaint by a real .estate broker for commissions which alleges that defendant employed him to sell the land and agreed to pay him a certain commission if he found a purchaser, and that he advertised and sold the land to one who paid the purchase money, and received a deed, but that the defendant refused to pay the broker his commissions is good against demurrer. Adams v. McLaughlin, 159 Ind. 23, 64 N. E. 462; Lukin v. Halderson, 24 Ind. App. 645, 57 N. E. 254; Cannon v. Castelman, 24 Ind. App. 188, 55 N. E. I11; Mullen v. Bower, 22 Ind. App. 294, 53 N. E. 790; Wright v. Beach, 82 Mich. 469, 46 N. W. 673; Lemon v. Be Wolf, 89 Minn. 465, 95 N. W. 316; Downey v. Turner, 28 N. Y. App. Div. 491, 51 W. Y. S. 105; Yarborough v. Creager (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 77 S. W. 645; Brockenbrow v. Stafford (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 76 S. W. 576.

A complaint for a commission is sufficient if it states such facts as will inform the defendant of the nature of the action, and be so explicit that a judgment thereon will bar another suit for the same cause. Beineke v. Wuegler, 77 Ind. 468; Ackerman v. Bryan, 33 Neb. 515, 50 N. W. 435.

A complaint for a commission by a broker employed to sell lands must allege in direct and positive terms that he rendered the services which resulted in the sale of the property, or that he produced to the principal a party ready, willing and able to purchase said property upon the terms named. Jacobs v. Shenon, 3 Ida. 274, 29 P. 44; Booth v. Moody, 30 Ore. 222, 46 P. 884; Sullivan v. Milliken, 113 Fed. 93, 51 C. C. A. 79; Kupfrain Park Co. v. Runcie, 96 N. E. 626, 49 Ind. App. 32; Olcott v. McClure, 98 N. E. 82, 50 Ind. App. 79; Ball v. Davenport, 152 ST. W. 69, 170 Iowa, 33; Hazen v. Ransom, 64 S. 682, 134 La. 696; Moore v. King, 178 S. W. 124, - Mo. Sup. -; Shober v. Blackford, 127 P. 329, 46 Mont. 194; Hevia v. Wheelock, 148 N. Y. Sup. 165, 162 App. Div. 759; Shelton v. Cain, 136 S. W. 1155, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Lilly v. Yeary, 152 S. W. 823; Levy v. Dunken Realty Co., 179 S. W. 699, den. re., 178 S. W. 984, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Fleming v. Maxwell, 117 N. E. 210, - Ind. Sup. -; Woolley v. Batchelder, 169 P. 408, - Cal. App. -; Gibbons v. Monongahela Riv. Con. Coal & Coke Co., 68 Pa. Super. Ct. 232; Webb v. Harding, 211 S. W. 927, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Luckey v. Daniels, 102 S. E. 902, - Ga. App. - .

A petition by real estate brokers to recover commissions, which alleged that defendants requested them to assist in trading land, and agreed to pay plaintiffs a reasonable commission, and that plaintiff performed services which were reasonably worth a stated sum, declares on a quantum meruit. Stanley v. Whitlow, 168 S. W. 840, 181 Mo. App. 461.

Where a commission is due a broker on a sale of land, and he foregoes it as consideration on an agreement to allow him to sell other land, on default of his principal on the second agreement, it is not necessary to plead rescission of the second contract to recover the consideration, where he had received nothing thereunder, the bringing of the action being sufficient allegation. Shapiro v. Benenson, 167 N. Y. Sup. 1004, 181 App. Div. 19.

In an action for commissions by broker employed to find a purchaser for property, complaint which does not allege consummation of sale must allege notification of principal that purchaser was found. Morris v. Clark, 80 S. 406, - Ala. Sup. - .

Realty brokers to have cause of action for commission on sale of land were required to procure a purchaser ready, able and willing to pay promised price provided in broker's contract with sellers, and then allege fact in direct and precise terms. Mer-haley v. Fish, 178 P. 945, - Cal. Sup. - .

If the complaint alleges that the defendant refused to consummate the sale, it must also allege that the customer was able, ready and willing to buy the property on the terms proposed by the principal, or it is fatally defective on demurrer. Sayre v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 151, 5 S. 157; Reardon v. Washburn, 59 I11. App. 161; Newton v. Donnelly, 9 Ind. App. 359, 36 N. B. 769; Brown v. Russell, 221 S. W. 791, - Mo. App. - .