Defendant employed plaintiff to sell a piece of property for her representing to him that it was seventy-six feet in depth. Plaintiff procured a purchaser to whom defendant made the same representations, and on his discovering that the lot was in reality but sixty-six feet deep he refused to complete the purchase. Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to commissions. Hausman v. Herdtfelder, 80 N. Y. S. 1039, 81 App. Div. 46; Diamond v. Hartley, 55 N. Y. S. 994, 61 N. Y. S. 1022, 38 App. Div. 87, 47 App. Div. 1. See also Sec. 183, 435.

In an action by a broker to recover commissions for procuring a loan, it appeared that the written portion of the application for the loan was filled in by the broker, and that he was aware, when defendant signed the application, that defendant was uncertain as to the exact dimensions of the lot on which security was to be given, though the dimensions were stated in the application, and the loan was rejected because the dimensions were not correctly given. Held, that inasmuch as the broker was equally responsible with the defendant for not disclosing the situation to the lender and for their refusal to make the loan, he could not recover. Diamond v. Harley, 61 N. Y. S. 1022, 47 App. Div. 1.

"Where a vendee refused to complete a contract for the sale of land by reason of an alleged deficiency in quantity, but it was shown that the contract written by one of the vendor's brokers contained a mistaken description and included land which the vendor did not own, without his knowledge and consent, but by reason of the receding of a lake on which the land bordered, the farm contracted to be conveyed actually contained more than the number of acres specified, the brokers were not entitled to a commission. Scott v. Gage, 16 S. D. 285, 92 N. W. 37.

Where the principal gives the broker a card describing the lot as twenty-three feet wide, and the broker in good faith makes this statement to a prospective purchaser, and the sale falls through because the true width of the lot falls short five inches, the broker was held entitled to recover his commissions. Cohen v. Farley, 58 N. Y. S. 1102, 28 Misc. 168; Sullivan v. Brown, 64 S. 455, 67 Fla. 133; Schward v. Storandt, 143 N. Y. Sup. 161, 157 App. Div. 855, judg. aff. 112 N. E. 1075, 217 N. Y. 637; Keough v. Mayer, I11 N. Y. Sup. 1, 127 App. Div. 273; Sokolski v. Bleistift, 129 N. Y. Sup. 26. This conflicts with other decisions in the same jurisdiction. Hausman v. Herdtfelder, 80 N. Y. S. 1039, 81 App. Div. 46; Diamond v. Hartley, 61 N. Y. S. 1022, 47 App. Div. 1.

Where a real estate broker procures a purchaser of land at the agreed price, and the owner sells to him; on discovering that the land does not contain the supposed number of acres the broker is entitled to his commissions at the agreed rate on the latter sum. Eoefling v. Hableton, 84 Tex. 517, 19 S. W. 689. On the other hand, another court holds, where the terms of sale are fixed by the vendor, in accordance with which the broker undertakes to produce a purchaser, and upon the procurement of a purchaser, the vendor voluntarily reduces the price of the property, or the quantity, or otherwise changes the terms of sale as proposed to the broker, so that a sale is made, or terms or conditions are offered which the proposed buyer is ready and willing to accept, the broker will be entitled to his commissions at the rate specified in his agreement with the principal. Steivart v. Mather, 32 Wis. 344. Compare Bowman v. Hart-man, 27 O. Cir. Ct. 309. Contra, Sec. 422.

In an action by a real estate agent to recover commissions earned, on the ground that the purchaser refused to take the property on account of false representations of the length of the lot, a verdict for defendant is clearly right, where it appears that the purchaser knew the exact length of the lot before he agreed to purchase. Sloman v. Bodwell, 24 Neb. 790, 40 N. W. 321. The same is true where the broker knew the size of the lot. Keough v. Meyer, I11 N. Y. S. 1, 127 App. Div. 273. Where plaintiff agreed with defendant to procure for him a person who would negotiate for the purchase of his property, and he did procure such a person, and negotiations were entered into and carried on, but resulted in a sale of a less amount of property than was contemplated in the agreement under which plaintiff undertook to procure such purchaser, he was entitled to recover commissions on the quantity sold. Bowman v. Hartman, 27 0. Cir. Ct. 309. Compare Stewart v. Mather, 32 "Wis. 344. Broker entitled to commission where sale was defeated by misrepresentation made to the purchaser by an employe of the seller. Hugill v. Weekley, 64 W. Va. 210, 61 S. E. 360, 15 L. R. A., N. S. 1262.

A real estate broker employed to divide a tract into lots of specified dimensions, and sell the same for a commission in excess of the specified sum, may not divide the tract into lots of different dimensions, where it is impracticable to divide but into lots of the specified dimensions, and where the owner refuses to permit the division, the broker may not recover commissions. Hutchings v. McLaughlin, 149 S. W. 833, 149 Ky. 366.

Where a seller and purchaser entered into a written contract, whereby the seller agreed to convey the property in consideration that the purchaser would convey to defendant other property described as being of certain dimensions, more or less; held, plaintiffs were entitled to commissions, notwithstanding the purchaser and seller were mutually mistaken as to the dimensions of the property to be conveyed by the purchaser. Regelin v. Gonran, 184 I11. App. 570.

Where a vendor of land signed, at the request of the broker, a memorandum describing the property to be sold, and refused to sign a contract varying that description, he was not bound to prepare and present another contract which he would sign, the memorandum affording the broker a sufficient description. Abbott v. Lee, 85 A. 526, 86 Conn. 392.