Plaintiff had a contract with defendant by which in consideration of special efforts of the former to sell a house belonging to the defendant, and of advertising the house in a circular which plaintiff was to publish, the defendant agreed to pay a certain commission on the sum for which the house should be sold; if the sale was made by any other broker, a minimum price was fixed at which the property was to be sold. Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission where the house was subsequently sold through another broker by the acceptance of a standing offer made through such broker several months after the contract with plaintiff was entered into, and the sale being at a less figure than that named in the contract with plaintiff. Powell v. Anderson, 15 Daly (N. Y.), 210, 4 N. Y. S. 706.

Where an owner openly places his property in the hands of rival agents for sale and one makes the sale to a customer with whom the other had first, but unsuccessfully negotiated, the owner is not liable to the latter for commissions. Carper v. Sweet, 26 Colo. 547, 57 P. 45; Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 S. 1011; Oirardieu v. Gibson, 122 Ga. 313, 50 S. E. 91; Carlson v. Nathan, 43 I11. App. 364; West End Co. v. Mann, 133 I11. App. 544; Platt v. Jahr, 9 Ind. App. 58, 36 N. E. 294; Livezy v. Miller, 61 Md. 336; Leonard v. Eld-388 ridge, 184 Mass. 594, 69 N. E. 337; Crowningshield v. Foster, 169 Mass. 237, 47 N. E. 879; Chandler v. Sutton, 5 Daly (N. Y.), 112; De Zavola v. Bozaliner, 84 N. Y. S. 969; Friedman v. Havemeyer, 55 N. Y. S. 97, 37 App. Div. 518; Earp v. Cummins, 54 Pa. St. 394; Dewall v. Moody, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 60 S. W. 269; Montgomery v. Biering (Tex. Civ. App. '95), 30 S. W. 508; Land Mtge. Bk. v. Hargis (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 70 S. W. 352.

If the broker fails to bring a customer to terms and abandons negotiations, he is not ordinarily entitled to commissions upon a sale made by the owner to the customer. Watts v. Howard, 51 I11. App. 243; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226, 45 N. W. 428; Cathcart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34, 49 N. W. 331; Tooker v. Duckworth, 107 Mo. App. 231, 80 S. W. 963; Hen-kel v. Dunn, 97 Mo. App. 671, 71 S. W. 735; Barnard v. Mon-nott, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 90; Meyer v. Strauss, 58 N. Y. S. 904, 42 App. Div. 613; Getzler v. Boehm, 38 N. Y. S. 52, 16 Misc. 390; Alden v. Earle, 121 N. Y. 688, 24 N. E. 705; Tyng v. Constable, 71 N. Y. S. 820, 35 Misc. 283; Miller v. Vining, 98 N. Y. S. 466, 112 App. Div. 304; Schano v. Storch, 107 N. Y. S. 26, 56 Misc. 484; Jones v. Buck (Iowa Sup. '09), 120 N. W. 112; Cannon v. Bates, 80 S. E. 581, 115 Va. 711. See also Sec. 148.

Where a broker employed to sell a whole tract of land or a part thereof, failed, and an attempt was made to discharge him, but he continued his negotiations and the owner afterward sold a portion to the broker's customer, the broker was held entitled to recover a proportionate commission. Diamond v. Wheeler, 80 N. Y. S. 416, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 58.

Plaintiffs, to recover under their agreement to negotiate the purchase for defendant of land for certain commissions on the amount of the purchase, must show that through their efforts and negotiations defendant became the purchaser; this is not the case where their efforts to get a price from the owner which defendant would accept failed, and long after their negotiations and dealings with him had ceased, and they and defendant had abandoned hope of reaching an agreement with him, he, on learning that defendant was to commence condemnation proceedings for the land, made an offer to defendant, which was accepted, to submit to arbitration the price at which defendant should take the property. Martien v. Mayor, etc., Baltimore, 109 Md. 260, 71 A. 966.

If a broker, after offering a farm at a price in excess of the lowest price authorized by the owner, which the purchaser said was too high, allowed the purchaser to go with the understanding that the price stated was the lowest which would be accepted, and made no arrangements for further negotiations, and the purchaser notified the owner of the negotiations with the broker, and that he would not deal further with him, and the owner, in good faith, sold the farm to the purchaser, the broker would not be entitled to commissions on the sale. Heenan v. Harris (Mich. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 741, 16 D. L.

N. 344. See also Sec. 292.

The predominating, inducing cause of a sale or exchange of properties is the cause originating a series of events which, without break of continuity, results in a sale or exchange. In re Breon Lumber Co., 181 F. 909; Nooning v. Miller, 165 S. W. 1119, 178 Mo. App. 297.