In a contract with a real estate broker for the sale of certain property, the description, "My property, 48 Eldridge Court," is sufficiently definite to enable the broker to recover commissions, the contract being dated at Chicago, where there is a number 48 Eldridge Court, of which the principal is a part owner. Weaver v. Snow, 60 I11. App. 624; Powers v. Bohnslav (Neb. Sup. '09), 120 N. W. 942; Schultz v. Griffin, 8 1ST. Y. St. Rep. 332; rev. 121 N. Y. 294, 24 1ST. E. 480; Dann-hauer v. Kaylor, 126 N. E. 31, - Ind. App. - . See also Sec. 428a; Tilden v. Smith (S. D. Sup. '10), 124 N. W. 841. In a petition for a commission for finding a purchaser it is not necessary to particularly describe the land. Mullen v. Bower, 22 Ind. App. 294, 53 N. E. 790; McAllister v. Walker, 39 Minn. 535, 41 N. W. 107.

A real estate broker authorized to sell a tract of land spoken of by the owner as being on the line of a certain canal, has no authority to sell it by any other description than that by which it was purchased by the owner, and the broker's commissions are not earned where the trade falls through because the contract made by the broker with the intending purchaser described the tract as containing a stated number of acres south of the canal, whereas it was described in the conveyance to the owner as being that number of acres south of the center of the canal. Ward v. Lawrence, 79 I11. 295; Scott v. Gage, 16 S. D. 285, 92 N. W. 37. See also Secs. 181, 476.

A memorandum, "I hereby agree to pay ...... for trading my 615-acre farm at H.", sufficiently described the land under Burns's Ann. Stat. 1914, sec. 7463 (Acts 1901, c. 67, as amended by Acts 1913, c. 219). Herr v. McConnell, 179 N. E. 496, - Ind. App. - .

A written agreement to give a broker all over $90 per acre to sell land, "$3,000 cash, * * * balance at 5% interest," without stating when and how the balance was to be paid, was sufficient under Comp. Laws 1915, sec. 11981, subd. 5. Cochran v. Sta-man, 167 N. W. 1015, 201 Mich. 630.

Under Rem. Code 1915, sec. 5289, contract agreeing to pay broker a commission for furnishing a buyer or party who would exchange for "my stock ranch located in secs. 9, 17 and 21," etc., was unenforceable for want of sufficient land description. Rogers v. Lippy, 169 P. 858, 99 Wash. 312, L. E. A. (N. S.) 1918 C, 583.

Under Rem. Code 1915, sec. 5289, agreement to pay commission for exchange of "my * * * 667 acres hay ranch, located near Cataldo, Idaho," was unforceable for want of sufficient land description. Nance v. Valentine, 169 P. 862, 99 Wash. 323.

Agreement to pay commission, provided "the exchange is made," could not be considered as an unconditional promise to pay for services rendered, so that it could be enforced, regardless of insufficiency of description of the realty, under Rem. Code 1915, sec. 529. Id.

Much greater liberality is allowed in construing and correcting a defective description in a broker's contract than in a deed to land, and such contracts will not be declared void merely because of a defect, uncertainty or ambiguity in describing property to be sold or exchanged, where the defect can be cured by allegation and proof of extrinsic facts and circumstances. Mac-knight v. Davitt, 174 P. 77, - Cal. App. - .