(16) In an action for commissions; held, error to instruct on the theory that the owner, by accepting a check in part payment, ratified the broker's contract of sale with the prospective purchaser, of which the owner had not been advised, and that he had never signed. Cardozo v. Middle Atlantic Emi. Co., 82 S. E. 80, 116 Va. 342.

(17) Refusal to instruct that if the owner originally authorized a sale on certain terms, and subsequently accepted prospective purchaser's check for collection, giving a receipt, stating the terms of payment of the commission, such papers constituted the only contract, and there could be no recovery unless failure to collect the check was due to the defendant's fault; held, improper. Id.

(18) In a broker's action for commission, there was evidence to warrant a finding that his efforts to make a sale failed, and that it was finally made to the same party by another broker with whom defendants had made a like contract, a refusal of charges that if the second broker induced the buyer to purchase, after plaintiff had failed to do so, verdict should be for the defendants, was error. Scott v. Cleveland, 183 S. W. 197, 122 Ark. 259.

(19) Instruction to the jury to find for owner, unless they believed, from the evidence, that the agent had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that agent named terms to a purchaser, who was ready, willing and able to accept; held, improper. Hurling v. Frey, 182 I11. App. 547.

(20) Where the price at which a broker, without an exclusive agency, could sell, was not fixed, it was error to instruct that it was immaterial that the owner did not know that the prospective purchaser had corresponded with the broker, if the broker procured a purchaser'able and willing to buy. Seevers v. Cleveland Coal Co., 138 N. W. 703, 158 Iowa, 574, Ann. Cas. 1915 D, 188.

(21) Where there was evidence that a purchaser found by a broker was not disclosed to the owner, an instruction that if the broker "procured" a purchaser, the verdict should be for the broker, was misleading. Coppage v. Howard, 96 A. 642, 127 Md. 512.

(22) In an action for a broker's commission for furnishing a purchaser for defendant's farm, the actual sale of the premises being conducted by defendant, without assistance from plaintiff, an instruction directing a finding for plaintiff, which omits any hypothesis of his being the procuring cause, and submits whether defendant, after plaintiff entered into negotiations with the purchaser, himself entered into negotiations directly with the purchaser, as a subterfuge to avoid the payment of commission, is error, there being no evidence of defendant adopting a subterfuge. Sublette v. Lowe, 133 S. W. 127, 152 Mo. App. 186.

(23) In an action for a broker's commission, where the court had given instructions covering every phase of the case, it was error to instruct that, before plaintiff could recover, he must show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that he was the "prime cause" of the purchase, as the jury might infer from the use of the word "prime" that the cause must be first in order of time originally, and that something more definite was meant than was included in the other instructions as to the "procuring" cause. 8. J. Cox Real Estate Co. v. French, 142 S. W. 449, 160 Mo. App. 678.

(24) In an action by a broker for compensation, where it appears that a second broker had assisted in the deal, an instruction, that if the trade was solely made by the second broker and the defendant had paid him a commission, then plaintiff could not recover, is misleading, since the payment of the second broker could not affect plaintiffs rights. Weidemeyer v. Woodrum, 154 S. W. 894, 168 Mo. App. 716.

(25) An instruction, in an action by a broker for commission; held erroneous, as tending to mislead the jury to believe that the sale must have been completed within the time limited by the option, in order for the broker to recover. Cole v. Crump, 156 S. W. 769, 174 Mo. App. 215.

(26) In action for commission for obtaining a loan for contractors of Fidelity Co., instruction held erroneous, as submitting loan of a different character from that claimed to have been obtained by plaintiff. Bartlett v. Garrett, 175 S. W. 79, 188 Mo. App. 144.

(27) An instruction permitting verdict in belief of plaintiff's own testimony was erroneous, the instruction should have submitted the question of plaintiff's procuring cause. Id.

(28) A requested instruction denying recovery of commission on a sale of machinery and lease of a mill, by the negotiations temporarily ended; held, erroneous. Nat. Milling Co. v. Kirby, 94 A. 149, - E. I. Sup. - .

(29) Where, in an action for broker's commission, defendant claimed that he had paid a commission to H., who was the procuring cause of the sale, an instruction that if, after plaintiffs carried the purchaser to see defendant's land, they returned to town and did not close the deal, and the purchaser subsequently returned and purchased the land from H., the jury should find for defendant, provided plaintiffs had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence that they had an exclusive agency for the sale of the land, was improperly allowed, without a further qualification that, if the jury believed the plaintiffs' act in showing land to the purchaser was not the proximate cause of the sale being made by defendant to such purchaser. Stephenson v. Jackson, 128 S. W. 1196, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(30) Evidence held not to justify peremptory instruction for the broker suing for a commission, where there was evidence that he was to have no commission unless a sale was consummated, and it did not indisputably appear that the failure to consummate the sale was due to the owner's fault. Heath v. Hoffhines, 152 S. W. 176, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(31) In an action by a broker for commissions for procuring a purchaser, a charge directing the jury's attention to the acts of defendant's wife, as determining the plaintiff's right to a commission; held improper, as being misleading. Alexander v. Smith, 61 S. 68, 180 Ala, 541.