(46) If a broker is entitled to recover any compensation on a sale made by his principal on terms different from those set forth in his contract, he must sue upon a quantum meruit and not on the contract. Clark, v. Asbury, 134 S. W. 286, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(47) Petition in a broker's action for commissions; held, not objectionable as not stating a cause of action, because of allegation of an agreement to sell, and the other allegation of bringing about a sale, there being no difference between a sale and bringing about a sale. Smith v. Lyons Salt Co., 177 S. W. 1057, - Mo. App. - .

(48) Where, in a suit for broker's services, plaintiff's verified statement alleged that defendants were entitled to a credit of $547.50, while incorrect, was not specifically denied, the fact that plaintiff discovered a mistake on the trial, and admitted that he owed defendants on an extraneous account $880.67 more, did not give defendants an additional right to extend the inquiry to cover such question. Dempster v. Cochran, 174 F. 587, 98 C. C. A. 433.

(49) In an action for broker's commissions, exclusively on the theory that plaintiff procured a sale of part of the contract that he was authorized to sell, and did not allege he was instrumental in the subsequent sale, he was not entitled to prove by the purchaser how much more of the entire tract he had purchased, in addition to the original amount purchased. Cone v. Keil, 124 P. 548, 18 Cal. App. 675.

(50) In a broker's action for compensation for selling land, where the only cause of action shown by the evidence was one for the recovery of certain property which they agreed to give plaintiff for making the sale, or the recovery of the value thereof and the petition showed that the consideration for the transfer was plaintiff's services. The fact that the further allegation that the property was to be conveyed by defendants, and accepted by plaintiff in lieu of an agreed commission of $3,000, was shown to be untrue, did not defeat plaintiff's right to recover the property, or have a decree for specific performance. Cheek v. Nicholson, 133 S. W. 707, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(51) For the purpose of calculating an agent's commission on an exchange of property, the property taken by the principal must be assumed to be worth the value placed upon it by the parties to the trade at the time the contract was consummated. Waddell v. Noser, 188 I11. App. 302.

(52) A contract for employment of plaintiff to procure a purchaser; held, to require defendant, on plaintiff's procuring a purchaser, to organize a corporation, and to put in its treasury the par value of the stock which plaintiff was to receive, should be fully paid when issued, within Rev. Stat. 1909, Sec. 2981. Moore v. King, 178 S. W. 124, - Mo. Sup. - .

(53) In a real estate broker's action for a commission, evidence held insufficient to show the seller's lack of good faith in the transaction, wherein her contract to sell to the buyer introduced to her by plaintiff fell through, and she later consummated a sale through another agent to the same buyer. Bruce v. Drake, 70 S. 273, 195 Ala. 236.

(54) In an action for compensation under an alleged agreement by which plaintiffs, for procuring an option on land for erecting a building and leasing the building, were to receive a certain percentage of the net annual rent, evidence held to show that the parties used the term "net rental" to mean the gross rental, less the expense for maintaining, in the absence of which the gross and net rental were the same. Kinsey v. Dickinson, 140 ST. W. 983, 175 Mich. 1.

(55) Evidence held to show that the owner did not list the land with the broker in the usual way, but that he so understood that, unless the broker actually made a sale, he should be paid nothing. Carr v. Manistee Land & Timber Co., 146 N. W. 202, 179 Mich. 338.

(56) Where brokers were entitled to commissions in a corporation purchase of certain Indian allotments through another source within a year after acquiring deeds to certain other allotments, the fact that the corporation did so was merely evidence of defendant's good faith, and was not indicative that the broker's contract had been abrogated. Lord v. Wapate Irr. Co., 142 P. 1172, 81 Wash. 561, judg. aff. on re., 152 P. 329, 81 Wash. 696.

(57) Where introduction of advertisement, or disclosure of purchaser is relied upon to entitle broker to a commission, the evidence must show that it was the foundation of the negotiations resulting in the sale, though conducted and concluded by the owner. Dillard v. Field, 153 S. W. 532, 168 Mo. App. 206.

(58) The fact that plaintiff, who acted as agent for defendant in a sale of her property, renders a statement for the amount due for commission and services on the day the deed is delivered, is not conclusive evidence that plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation for extra services. Wood v. Foster, 181 I11. App. 409.

(59) Where a broker's right to commission was based on his agreement with a third person, who had been employed by the owner, and the third person had assigned to the broker all interest in his claim for commission, the broker could recover the entire commission. Anderson v. Crow, 151 S. W. 1080, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(60) Where a contract employing a broker to procure a purchaser for real estate did not fix any time for the performance of the contract, and the owner did not revoke the agency, nor inquire of the broker as to what was being done in procuring a purchaser, the court could not say, as a matter of law, that a period of five months since the owner had heard from the broker was an unreasonable time, so as to terminate the contract, and authorize the owner to make a sale without liability to the broker for a commission. Schlagle v. Russell, 80 A. 164, 114 Md. 418.

(61) In an action for a share of broker's commission, evidence held insufficient to present the question for the jury as to whether employment under which sale was effected was a continuation of prior negotiations. Lucas v. Crenshaw. 82 A. 446 116 Md. 445.