(19) In an action for commissions, an instruction that the broker to recover must procure a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms fixed by the owner; held, not erroneous, where plaintiff testified to a different contract from that proposed by the owner. Gilfillan v. Schmidt, 151 S. W. 161, 167 Mo. App. 709.

(20) Where certain instructions in an action for broker's commission required a finding that plaintiff must have "secured" a purchaser for defendant's land, the word "secure" meant to "obtain," not being synonymous with "get," "obtain" and "attain," one definition of which is, to "procure"; and hence, the instructions were not objectionable for failure to require that plaintiff was the "procuring cause" of the sale. Ross v. Major, 163 S. W. 880, 178 Mo. App. 431.

(21) An instruction that, unless a definite time was specified in the contract in which plaintiff was to sell, lapse of time was immaterial, if not unreasonable; held, not misleading. Tull v. Starmer, 176 S. W. 511, 188 Mo. App. 713.

(22) In an action by brokers for commission, instruction to find for plaintiffs if they procured a person ready, willing and able to purchase on the "terms" authorized; held, not erroneous for failure to use the expression, "exact terms." Thompson v. DcLonq, 140 P. 427, 40 Okl. 718.

(23) The clause of an instruction that a real estate agent "is entitled to his commission when he produced the landowner a purchaser who is ready, able and willing to buy the land on the terms thereof," is not inconsistent with one that "plaintiff must show that he brought together defendant and the purchaser, and the purchaser was induced to buy defendant's farm, and his efforts were the procuring cause of the sale." Peterson v. Bogner, 117 P. 805, 59 Or. 555.

(24) An instruction, in an action by a broker for commissions, that the original price at which he was authorized to sell was a certain amount, yet, if afterwards the parties made a new contract whereby the price at which plaintiff could sell was raised, he must prove he produced a party ready, able and willing to buy at the latter price, does not require plaintiff to prove defendant's defense. Id.

(25) In an action for a commission on a sale of machinery and lease of a mill, modification of an instruction requested by defendant as to temporary suspension of negotiations; held, correct. National Milling Co. v. Kirby, 94 A. 149, - R. I. Sup. - .

(26) In an action by a broker for commission for procuring an exchange of real estate instruction submitting the question whether an agreement for an exchange was made, and making the right to recovery dependent on an affirmative finding; held, proper. Lan-ham v. Cockrell, 152 S. W. 189, - Tex. Civ. App. - ., judg. aff., 194 S. W. 936, - Tex. Sup. - .

(27) An instruction, at the defendant's request, in an action to determine which of two real estate brokers was entitled to the commission for selling the land, that where real estate was listed for sale with several real estate agents, acting independently, the one who succeeded in bringing about the contract between the seller and purchaser was the one who earned the commission, regardless of the fact that some other real estate man may have introduced the purchaser to the seller, if error, as excluding the theory that the broker who is the procuring cause of the sale is entitled to the commission, did not constitute reversible error, where instructions were given in plaintiff's behalf, that if the purchaser of the land had it first Drought to his notice by plaintiff, who, at his solicitation, disclosed the owner's name, and the information received from plaintiff was the primary cause of the purchaser afterwards buying the land, then plaintiffs were entitled to recover, even though defendants showed the purchaser the land and assisted in closing the trade, and that if the purchaser promised plaintiffs to take it if it suited, before defendants brought the land to the purchaser's notice, and the owner was notified by the plaintiffs of that fact, and the defendants afterwards took the purchaser to show him the land, then plaintiffs were entitled to recover, even though they did not bring the purchaser and owner together, and did not close the trade for the land. Painters v. Kilgore, 101 S. W. 809, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(28) An instruction as to broker's right to commission, where he did not personally conduct the negotiations, and was not present when the bargain was closed, and where his principal did not, at the time, know that he found the purchaser, was not inapplicable to the facts, where plaintiff did not personally negotiate the exchange, and was not present when it was made. McKinney v. Thedford, 166 S. W. 443, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(29) Though there may be a shade of difference between the expression "procuring cause" and "efficient cause," an instruction authorizing a verdict for the broker, if he was the procuring cause of the sale, is correct. Bogley v. Foley, 144 P. 25, 82 Wash. 222.

(30) In broker's action for compensation fixed by written contract authorizing him to find a purchaser, instruction as to the intention that the purchaser's proposition should be construed as a compliance with the contract; held, proper. John E. DeWolf Co. v. Harvey, 154 N. W. 988, 161 Wis. 535.

(31) Where the evidence on the part of defendant, in a broker's action for commission, was that it was agreed between plaintiff, the purchaser and himself, that the contract should be left with him, and that if his wife would sign, or accept it, it should he regarded as a sale, otherwise not, and there was no contention that the exact terms of the sale were agreed upon when the land was listed, an instruction that if plaintiff, defendant and the purchaser agreed that the contract should be left with defendant, who would accept it if his wife would sign it, and his wife refused to sign it, plaintiff could not recover, was proper, as presenting the issue tendered by defendant. J. N. Dunlop & Go. v. Anderson, 133 N. W. 910, 153 Iowa, 488.