(32) In an action by a broker for commissions for procuring a purchaser of real estate, where the purchaser testified that the broker had proposed that the purchaser and the broker should buy the land together, and the broker, to some extent, corroborated the purchaser, a charge that if the broker proposed to the purchaser that they should buy the property together, there could be no recovery, was justified by the evidence. Schlagle v. Russell, 80 A. 164, 114 Md. 418.

(33) Instructions, in action for commissions for assisting an exchange of property, concerning plaintiffs as acting for both parties; held, not inconsistent. T. A. Bill & Son v. Patton & Schwartz, 160 S. W. 1155, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(34) An instruction that plaintiffs could recover, if they procured a buyer themselves, or through their agent R., was not objectionable on the ground that 3?. was the buyer's agent, and that an agent can not delegate his authority, without his principal's consent, and can not represent both parties, where the evidence showed that R. represented the buyer only, and the brokers, on both sides, represented their respective principals in the negotiations. McKinney v. Thedford, 166 S. W. 443, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(35) An instruction that plaintiffs, suing for commission, were not partners of R., who represented the other party, and that they may recover, though R. got all the commission from the other party, was not objectionable, on the ground that the agent who receives secret commissions from the other party can not recover, where the evidence showed that the brokers on both sides represented their respective principals only. Id.

(36) An instruction, in an action by a vendor of land against a broker who effected a sale, for damages for fraud and faithlessness; held, not subject to objection requiring the jury, if finding for broker, to find that he acted in good faith. Thomas v. Mohn, 193 S. W. 924, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(37) In an action to recover commissions for services in a land deal involving two separate transactions, a given instruction held not an instruction to find for plaintiff in the sum of $1,280, or finding for defendant, but amounted to an instruction that burden was on plaintiff to prove the contract alleged, and that she had performed services in consummation of one or both of deals mentioned, which entitled her to claim commission of one dollar per acre on the land exchanged by defendant. Kamp v. Madison, 161 1ST. W. 809, - S. D. Sup. - .

(38) In broker's action for commission against owner, instruction that plaintiff must prove his employment, and mere fact that he asked defendant at what price he was willing to lease his property, did not establish relation of principal and agent; held,, sufficiently favorable to defendant. Symes Inv. Co. v. Be Sollar, 165 P. 985, - Colo. Sup. - .

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

(40) In a broker's action for commissions, court held to have properly directed a verdict, because evidence would not have warranted an inference that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. Huttig v. John Paul Lumber Co., 243 F. 539, 156 C. C. A. 237.

(41) In a broker's action for commissions for negotiating a resale of land, instruction as to duress as a species of fraud; held correct. Snyder v. Samuelson, 167 N. W. 287, - Minn. Sup. - .

(42) In an action by brokers to recover of defendant broker half-commission for having disclosed to him a purchaser for property of which he was the exclusive agent, instruction that, if jury found plaintiffs contracted with defendant for half-commission, it was not necessary for them to have produced a signed purchase contract, even though they endeavored to; held, proper and necessary, to keep the real issue before the jury. Baker v. Bakewell, 208 S. W. 844, - Mo. App. - .

(43) Brokers employed by the owner of city property to effect an exchange of the same for farm land; held, not middlemen, for the owner of the city property authorized them to receive from the owner of the farm land note for the exchange; and hence, where they misrepresented to the owner of the city property the price of the farm land, an instruction, in an action to recover secret profits thus obtained, was not objectionable in failing to present the question whether such brokers were middlemen. Schmidt v. Wallinger, 99 S. B. 680, 125 Va. 361.

(44) In broker's action for commission for making a sale of defendant's farm, it was proper to state to the jury that if evidence showed an agreement for compensation as claimed by defendant, the verdict should be for him. Mooney v. Burgess, 172 N. W. 308, - Minn. Sup. - .

(45) Instruction that burden was upon plaintiff to show, by a fair preponderance of evidence, that he was to receive a commission per acre, as he claimed, was not erroneous. Id.

(46) An instruction that to be the procuring cause of the sale, it was not necessary that plaintiff broker himself conclude all the negotiations culminating in a sale of the property, if he set in motion the machinery by which the work was done, was well framed. Finney v. Newson, 82 S. 441, - Ala. Sup. - .

(47) In a broker's action for commissions, on sale of a farm, an instruction that, whether the listing agreement between the parties was exclusive or not, all plaintiff broker had to do, to earn commission, was to find and produce a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy, etc., was not objectionable as eliminating the element that the broker must be the procuring cause of the sale. Thomas v. Wychoff, 174 N. W. 26, - Iowa Sup - .

(48) An instruction, that if a broker introduces a prospective purchaser to the seller, who undertakes to conduct the negotiations, and finally sells the property, he thereby waives the right to insist on the terms of the contract in that respect, and is liable for a reasonable commission, and the contract may be introduced as a guide in arriving at what is reasonable compensation, was well framed. Finney v. Newsom, 82 S. 441, - Ala. Sup. - .

(49) Where plaintiff purchased land which defendants; as brokers, sold for the owner; held, that in an action for damages on the theory that defendants represented that the owner's price was $75 an acre, when, in fact, it was only $50, and by such fraud made a large profit, it was not improper for the court to add to plaintiff's requested instruction, submitting the question of false representation, the question whether the representation as to price was made without the knowledge and consent of the owner. Hays v. Smith, 213 S. W. 451, - Mo. Sup. - .

(50) An instruction that it was conceded defendants told plaintiff they were acting as owner's agents, and that any statement by them as to what the owner would take for land does not alone constitute fraud; held, warranted. Id.

(51) In a broker's action for commission, no precise form of language is necessary in an instruction, it is only necessary that they cover the idea that the agent must have been the procuring and inducing cause of the sale. Schnaber v. Estes, 218 S. W. 908, - Mo. App. - .

(52) In an action by a broker for commission for effecting a sale of land for defendants, where defendants asserted that it was the understanding between the parties that they should pay only a part of the commissoin and that the purchaser should pay the remainder, and that they signed an agreement on condition that it should be signed by the purchasers, a requested instruction that a broker can not represent both parties, without their mutual knowledge and consent; held, warranted. Murphy v. Willis, 219 S. W. 776, - Ark. Sup. - .

(53) An instruction, that if the jury found for plaintiff, they should allow her such sum as defendant agreed to pay out of the purchase price, though it might have been better worded, conveys the idea that plaintiff could receive the agreed commission based on the purchase price, if a sale had been consummated. Brown v. Russell, 221 S. W. 791, - Mo. App. - .

(54) In a broker's action for commission in which owner claimed brokerage contract provided for commission only if land sold for price in excess of specified amount, instruction that jury should find for the owner, if the agreement required broker to find a purchaser at a sum that would yield only such amount; held, to sufficiently present such defense. Kaufman v. Jean, 225 S. W. 239, - Ky. Ct. App. - .

(55) In agent's action for commission, an instruction that, where two agents are employed to find a purchaser, and each makes an effort to sell the property to the same person, the owner is liable to the one "who is the proximate, efficient and procuring cause" of the sale, was proper, where the owner, without plaintiff's knowledge, sold it to that person when brought to him by another agent. Osburn v. Moore, 193 P. 892, - Kan. Sup. - .