Sec. 97. Respective Rights Of Brokers When Several Are Employed (P. 95)

"Where the property is placed in the hands of several brokers for sale, the owner is bound to pay the broker who in fact effects the sale, and cannot exercise his option."1

Where brokers work on a deal as quasi-partners or joint adventurers, payment of the whole amount due to one of them as agreed would seem to preclude recovery by the other from the principal, and leave at best a cause of action between the joint adventurers.2

Upon an issue in an action between two real estate brokers as to whether there was an agreement between them to divide the commissions for a certain sale, evidence of a usage among real estate brokers that two making a sale divide the commission equally, unless a different arrangement is made, is not admissible.3

Add to footnote 6 (p. 96):

Leadville Mining Co. v. Hemphill, 149 Pac. (Ariz.) 384 (1915); Idelson v. Robinson, 27 Colo. App. 507; 150 Pac. 322 (1915); Groskin v. Moore, 249 Pa. 242; 94 Atl. 1057 (1915); McCoombs v. Moss, 181 S. W. (Ark.) 907 (1916).

Add to footnote 6 (p. 96):

Cissel v. Hayden, 41 App. D. C. 477 (1914).

Sec. 98. Rule As To Commissions When Several Brokers Are Employed (P. 97)

At head of text insert the following two paragraphs: Where real property is given to several brokers for sale or exchange, the one first producing a customer and consummating a sale or exchange is entitled to the broker's commissions.

1 Beougher v. Clark, 81 Kan. 250; 106 Pac. 39 (1910); citing Eggleston v. Austin, 27 Kan. 245; Votaw v. lit Keever, 76 Kan. 870; 92 Pac. 1120; 19 Cyc. 260. 2Jenkins v. Mahoney, 142 App. Div. 653; 127 N. Y. Suppl. 573 (1911). 3Syllabus by the court in Smith v. Barringer, 37 Minn. 94; 33 N. W. 116 (1887).

And where, in such a case, negotiations have been had by one of the brokers with a purchaser and afterwards a contract is made with the same purchaser by other brokers on other terms than those suggested by the former broker, and the latter brokers actually bring the parties together and are the procuring cause of the contract, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the vendor they alone are entitled to commissions.4

Sec. 100. Liability For Commissions When Principal Negotiates Sale (P. 101)

Add to footnote 23:

Blumenthal v. Bridges, 91 Ark. 212; 120 S. W. 974; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 279.

4 Farber v. Cohn, 74 Misc. 396; 132 N. Y. Suppl. 348 (1911).