A contract to pay an agent a commission in money or other personalty for finding a purchaser for realty does not give the agent any interest in realty and is not within this clause of the statute.1 A contract to pay the agent in money if the consideration for the property sold, in excess of the money thereon, was paid in money, and if the consideration therefor was other realty, a proportional share thereof is a contract for the conveyance of an interest in realty and within this clause of the statute.2 By special statute in some jurisdictions contracts to pay a broker a commission for procuring a purchaser for realty is within the statute of frauds.3 Such a statute has no application where the agent has performed the contract on his part, the realty has been conveyed and the agent seeks to recover his commissions;4 nor does it include a contract to pay an agent for examining realty and advising his principal whether to buy it or not;5 nor does it include a contract between two brokers to co-operate in making a sale and to divide their commissions.6

110 Cal. 1; 42 Pac. 300, that the contract was within the statute.

1 Hannan v. Prentiss, 124 Mich. 417; 83 N. W. 102; Carr v. Leavitt, 54 Mich. 540; 20 N. W. 576; Vaughn v. McCarthy, 59 Minn. 199; 60 N. W. 1075; Snyder v. Wolford, 33 Minn. 175; 53 Am. Rep. 22; 22 N. W. 254; Rice-Dwyer, etc., Co. v. Ruhlman, 68 Mo. App. 503; Griffith v. Woolworth, 28 Neb. 715; 44 N. W. 1137; Spengeman v. Building Association, 60 N. J. L. 357; 37 Atl. 723; Lamb v. Baxter, 130 N. C. 67; 40 S. E. 850; Abbott v. Hunt, 129 N. C. 403; 40 S. E. 119; McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S. D. 497; 47 N. W. 816.

2 Russell v. Briggs, 165 N. Y. 500; 53 L. R. A. 556; 59 N. E. 303.

3 King v. Benson, 22 Mont. 256; 56 Pac. 280. By special statute in California an "agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate, for compensation or commission " is invalid unless in writing, and this includes an oral contract to pay an agent for services in procuring an exchange of land. Shanklin v. Hall, 100 Cal. 26; 34 Pac. 636.

4 Griffith v. Woolworth, 28 Neb. 715; 44 N. W. 1137.

5 Wilson v. Morton, 85 Cal. 598; 24 Pac. 784.

6Gorham v. Hieman, 90 Cal. 346; 27 Pac. 289.