Testimony that a deed was tendered to the principal "in pursuance of an agreement between" the parties is sufficient, prima facie, to sustain a finding that it was delivered within thirty days. Beebe v. Roberts, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 194.

Mere insolvency of the purchaser does not defeat the broker's right to a commission, where the sale contemplates being secured by a bond and deed of trust, which the purchaser is prepared to deliver. Ross v. Fickling, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 442. A petition which alleges that the sale failed because of an unsatisfied deed of trust on the property which the defendant had failed to release or have cancelled, is not defective in failing to allege that the deed was a lien on the property, or that defendant refused to consummate the sale. Ger-hart v. Peck, 42 Mo. App. 644.

A deed executed by the principal to the purchaser after the commencement of the suit, is inadmissible to show the principal's ratification of the agent's contract. Gelott v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 553, 23 S. W. 882. The defendant having assented to the terms of the written agreement to exchange the agreement and deed of conveyance were competent evidence of the sale and the consideration thereof. Hewitt v. Brown, 21 Minn. 163; Folinsbee v. Sawyer, 157 N. Y. 196, 51 N. E. 994; Levy v. Crogan, 16 Daly, 137, 9 N. Y. S. 534; Cannon v. Castleman, 24 Ind. App. 188, 55 N. E. 111.

The defendant was the owner of a parcel of real estate which he authorized the plaintiff to sell for a certain sum; nothing was said relative to the kind of deed to be given; the broker found a purchaser who refused to complete the transaction unless the defendant would give him a warranty deed, notwithstanding the defendant had a good title to the property; the defendant would not give a warranty deed, but offered to give a quit-claim deed, in the usual form, with special covenants, and so the sale was not executed. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions. Garcelon v. Tib-betts, 84 Me. 148, 24 A. 797.

In an action for a broker's commissions for negotiating a purchase which defendant refused to consummate, a deed, and a receipt, purporting to have been signed and acknowledged by the owner, and proof of a tender, were admissible with other proof, as tending to show that defendant could have obtained the property at his offer had he desired to do so, where no objection was raised to their form or genuineness. Hanna v. Espella, 148 Ala. 313, 42 S. 443.

A loan agent acting for B secured the latter's note and mortgage, but failed to effect the loan, and, while still holding the note and mortgage, which had been placed on record, bought the land under a sheriff's deed. Held, that good faith required the agent to secure the release of the mortgage before taking the deed, and that having failed to do so, the deed would be set aside. Smeltzer v. Lombard, 57 Iowa, 294. It requires an instrument under seal to ratify the unauthorized deed of an agent. Spofford v. Hobbs, 29 Me. 148; Drum-right v. Philpot, 16 Ga. 424; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120.

Deed of a guardian executed to defraud wards set aside and mortgage by grantee held null and void. Dormitzer v. German Sav. & Loan Co., 23 Wash. 132, 62 P. 862. Deed improperly secured by agent set aside. Clark v. Bird, 72 N. Y. S. 769, 66 App. Div. 284. Where a brokerage contract provided that the broker's authority to sell defendant's land should continue until withdrawn in writing, and defendant sold the land and gave a deed to the purchaser, the deed was not such a withdrawal of authority before such sale as would put an end to the contract by which defendant agreed to pay a commission if she sold the property herself during the life of the contract. Kimmel v. Shelly, 130 Cal. 555, 62 P. 1067. Where a broker's authorization to sell land was in force when the sale took place his rights were not affected by the fact that the deed did not pass until later. Hull v. McCoy, 1 Cal. App. 159, 81 P. 1015.

In a suit against a real estate broker and lawyer, by a former customer or client, to vacate certain deeds procured by him to be executed by her in his interest, and for the cancellation of an alleged compromise agreement confirming such deeds, it was held that, on a review of the evidence showing, among other things, that the defendant had purchased one interest from the complainant for $1,075, worth $2,500, and that shortly prior thereto he had collected over $800 for her, for which he failed to account, that whether, in view of the fiduciary relations of the defendant to the complainant, the burden was on him to show the validity of the transactions, the testimony, as a whole, was sufficient to justify vacating the deeds and cancelling the agreement. Holtzman v. Linton, 27 App. (D. C.) 241.

"Where an agent lawfully authorized to contract to sell real estate has attempted to convey the same by deed under a defective power of attorney, the deed will be treated in equity as a valid contract for the sale thereof. Hersey v. Lambert, 50 Minn. 373, 52 N. W. 963. See also Sec. 592.

An authorization to an agent to sell real estate for $8,000, $3,000 cash, entitles him to the agreed compensation if he secures a purchaser bound to the agreed terms, as the $3,000 cash means only the payment of such sum on delivery of a deed by the principal. Goss v. Broom, 31 Minn. 484. See also Secs. 410, 410a. An agent acting under parol authority can not bind his principal by a written covenant under seal, signed with the name of such principal. Such an instrument is not, in any sense, the deed of the principal unless delivered by him. Harshaw v. McKesson, 65 N. C. 688.

Broker entitled to commission although the deed is made to the purchaser procured by the broker and a third person. Bound v. Simkins, 151 S. W. 572, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Broker negotiating a real estate exchange transaction was not authorized to accept deed without due authorization by grantees. Rogers v. Wills, 179 P. 676, - Or. Sup. - .

Where a plaintiff in ejectment has received a deed wherein her name had been inserted as grantee after the deed had left the grantor's hands, and no apparent authority to supply or fill the deed is shown to have been in the broker, plaintiff was bound to know the nature of the broker's authority. Redding v. Scharsble, 177 N. W. 1019, - Minn. Sup. - .