(84) A broker employed to sell a junior mortgage interest at a specified price has no authority to make a contract containing conditions, on the performance of which the purchaser agrees to take the interest. Id.

(85) A mere listing of real estate with a broker does not authorize him to bind the owner by an executory contract of sale. Levy v. Yarbrough, 136 P. 1120, 41 Okl. 16.

(86) Before a real estate broker can bind the owner by an executory contract of sale, he must have specific authority therefor from the owner. Id.

(87) A landowner who makes a sale through a duly authorized broker is bound by the broker's statement as to the quantity of land. Coughron v. Stinespring, 170 S. W. 152, 132 Tenn. 636, L. E. A. 1916 C, 103.

(88) A contract by a landowner's brokers to sell the land at less than the price authorized, and exceeding their authority, including a water-right and guaranteeing the number and varieties of fruit trees, does not bind the owner. Smith v. Craig, 112 P. 513, 61 Wash. 528.

(89) Purchasers of realty upon abrogation of the contract for defects in title; held, entitled to recover $400 from the broker and $100 from the owner, for such broker had acted as agent for them, and $500, the entire deposit, if he had acted for himself. Depavo v. Rizzo, 149 P. 793, 27 Cal. App. 200; Id., 149 P. 795, 27 Cal. App. 793.

(90) An action does not lie by one who has contracted with a broker to purchase land owned by heirs, to recover a deposit made on account of purchase price, on the gound that there is a possibility that there may be claims against the estate which would be a lien against the property, where the defendant offers to procure a bond and pay any such claims, offering a deed conveying a good title to the property, free from incumbrances, and the plaintiff failed to comply or tender compliance with his part of the contract. Wynkoop v. Shoemaker, 37 App. D. C. 258.

(91) Where plaintiff applied to a loan broker for a loan, and the broker's principal sent the loan applied for to the broker, to be delivered to plaintiff when his title to the land, on which trust deeds were offered as security, was perfected, and the broker was made responsible, and violated the instruction of his principal to the extent of advances to plaintiff, and for money to satisfy an outstanding mortgage, it being agreed that he should hold balance until the defects in the title were removed, and the broker proceeded to remove the defects, and after part of them had been removed made another payment to plaintiff, plaintiff can not, while the other defects are not removed, recover the balance of the loan from the broker. Peters v. Carroll, 134 S. W. 49, 153 Mo. App. 375.

(92) Where a loan broker, under an agreement with plaintiff, retains part of the loan applied for till defects in the title to land offered as security by plaintiff should be removed, the fact that the party making the loan demanded that plaintiff pay interest on the full amount of the loan does not entitle plaintiff to recover the balance retained by the broker. Id.

(93) An agent of the lender held entitled to recover from the applicant for the loan the cost of obtaining an abstract. Carroll v. Lemmons, 147 S. W. 1101, 164 Mo. App. 655.

(94) A broker procuring a loan was not the agent of the borrower to receive the money, and the lender's payment of the broker's draft therefor was a failure of ordinary care. Robinson v. Citizens' Trust Co., 172 S. W. 1160, 187 Mo. App. 51.

(95) In determining whether a party to an exchange of real estate brought about by one who acted as agent for both parties is precluded from voiding contract on the ground that she did not know of the double agency, her habits of life, her age, and her knowledge of the English language should be considered. Neuman v. Friedman, 136 S. W. 251, 156 Mo. App. 142.

(96) A tenant in common who, with the others, has made a contract to sell the common property, is not liable to a purchaser for inducing the others in consummating the contract. Daly v. Cornwell, 54 N. Y. Sup. 107, 34 App. Div. 27.

(97) A person who has contracted to pay commissions on a sale of real estate can not object to such payment, on the ground that the purchaser offered was an unincorporated society, inasmuch as such an association may lawfully hold title to real property. Barrett v. King, 64 Pa. Super. Ct. 641.

(98) Where broker was to sell land at $22,000, on a commission of 5%, and a contract was entered into at $21,500, which was signed and agreed to by the owner, with proviso that broker should get an even $1,000 "when the sale is consummated," the latter words must have referred to some different event, and not the time of signing the contract of sale. Alison v. Chapman, 173 P. 389, - Cal. App. - .

(99) In partition, a contract to pay commission to a broker for finding a purchaser is a question of law for the court. Buxton v. Colver, 171 P. 1158, 102 Kan. 871.

(100) Pub. Laws 1913, #238, making void every agreement, promise, or contract to pay a commission, unless in writing, does not prevent proof of agency by the rescinding vendee, who alleged fraud of the agent of the vendor, such statute applying only as between the principal and the agent. Cox v. Holkeboer, 160 N. W. 1004, 200 Mich. 86.

(101) When the language of a brokerage contract is ambiguous, the construction which the parties have themselves put upon it is very controlling in determining their true intention. Miles v. Lampe, 168 N. W. 640, - Neb. Sup. - .

(102) Whether a broker is authorized by his contract to execute a binding contract of sale, in his principal's name, depends upon the intention of the parties, which must be determined from the whole contract in the light of the circumstances. Id.

(103) In an action for commission, where words used in broker's contract as to net price to owner have a well-defined legal meaning, parties must be presumed to have used them with such meaning, in the absence of any showing that they intended them to have a different meaning. Burton v. Wilson, 205 S. W. 655, - Ark. Sup. - .