(32) Where an owner claimed that the prospective purchaser, upon examination of the abstract, refused to complete the purchase under any circumstances, an instruction held erroneous, as denying owner a reasonable time within which to correct defects in his title. Bunyard v. Farman, 161 S. W. 640, 176 Mo. App. 89.

(33) In broker's action for commission on a sale which the purchaser failed to complete, instruction making owner's duty to sue to enforce the contract dependent entirely upon the advice given him by his counsel; held improper. Middle Atlan. Emi. Co. v. Ardon, 78 S. E. 588, 115 Va. 148.

(34) In an action for commission, instruction that broker could not sue to compel the purchaser to perform the contract negotiated by the broker was erroneous. Cardoso v. Middle Ail. Emi. Co., 82 S. E. 80, 116 Va. 342.

(35) The instructions, in a brokers' action for commissions for procuring an exchange of real estate, should have submitted the question of the owner's consent to the broker acting as agent for both parties, where the evidence raised that question. Goldsberry v. Thomas, 165 S. W. 1179, 178 Mo. App. 334.

(36) Proof that a real estate broker declared an intention to withhold certain material information from his principal, without proof of actual expression of such information or of the vendor's ignorance thereof; held, not to authorize an instruction propounding an inquiry as to the broker's bad faith. Peters v. Riley, 81 S. E. 530, 73 W. Va. 785.

(37) In an action for a broker's commission in procuring an exchange of real estate, where there was no special agreement as to the rate of commission, an oral charge to the jury that, if they found the issue for plaintiff, their verdict must be for a certain sum computed at a certain rate on the trade value; held, error under the testimony. Hovey v. Matteson, 188 I11. App. 486.

(38) Where, in an action for broker's commission, it was shown that, after the deal was closed, plaintiff requested defendant to mail her a check for $250 as her commission, not shown to have been merely an offer of compromise, it was error to charge, that if the jury found for plaintiff, their verdict must be for $750 and interest, on the theory that all the evidence showed that such was the customary commission. O'Donnell v. McElroy, 138 S. W. 674, 157 Mo. App. 547.

(39) An instruction to find for plaintiff in the amount agreed upon with his principal; held erroneous, where the amount was undisputed. Tull v. Starmer, 176 S. W. 511, 188 Mo. App. 713.

(40) Where, in a suit for broker's commissions, plaintiff's counsel gave notice that he elected to base plaintiff's right to recover on a quantum meruit, and the testimony varied as to the amount on which commission should be based, and as to the reasonable value of the services, the court erred in instructing that plaintiff's claim was for services on an agreed compensation, and in omitting to submit the question of reasonable value to the jury. Whit-ten v. Griswold, 118 P. 1018, 60 Or. 318.

(41) Where there was no express contract to pay plaintiff a specified amount for services in procuring a purchaser for realty, so that he was only entitled to recover upon an implied contract for the reasonable value of such services, if at all, it was error not to so charge in an action for commission. Toland v. Williams & Wiley, 120 S. W. 392, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(42) In a broker's action for commission; held, entitled to instruction on issue of his want of notice that buyer was procured by plaintiff, the several portions of general charge referring to such issue being too narrow under the evidence. Fawley v. Sheldon, 163 N. W. 585, - Iowa Sup. - .

(43) Evidence in an action for commission on an exchange of lands; held, not to warrant an instruction on adoption by ratification of defendant of plaintiffs' act in finding a purchaser. Anderson v. Walters, 194 S. W. 1153, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(44) Instruction that burden was on broker to show that defendant listed land for sale at agreed commission, and that the broker found a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy at stipulated price, does not cover the ground of performance, for instruction that broker could not recover if sale was on terms different from those named by defendant. Cooper v. Lyman, 194 S. W. 3, - Ark. Sup. - .

(45) In an action by a broker to recover a stipulated commission for an exchange of real estate between defendants and others; held, that a verdict for defendants should have been instructed under the evidence. Zurek v. Ferfeckl, 199 I11. App. 587.

(46) Where broker authorized to sell realty on certain terms negotiated less favorable contract, which was entered into by owner an agreement that difference was to be paid out of broker's commissions, instruction that owner must pay full amount of commission while permitting broker to act as his agent; held, reversible. Paulson v. Reeds, 167 K W. 371, - N. D. Sup. - .

(47) In action for commission, evidence held insufficient to disclose any bad faith or fraudulent practice of broker, so as to warrant an instruction as to good faith on the part of agent toward his principal. Raleigh Real Estate Co. v. Moser, 95 S. E. 498, 175 N. C. 255.

(48) In a broker's action for commissions, where there was no contract upon which defense was founded other than the express contract upon which broker had based claim, instruction that burden of proving a "special contract," was not to be paid if deal did not go through was upon defendants; held, erroneous. Jackson v. Kohler, 124 N. E. 650, - I11. Sup. - .

(49) Instruction that owner of realty is responsible for fraudulent representations of broker with whom defendants listed for sale, though owner did not instruct broker to make such representations and did not know that they were being made, was erroneous. Ringer v. Wilkins, 183 P. 986, - Idaho Sup. - .

(50) In broker's action for commission, founded upon a special contract and involving dispute as to terms thereof, instruction based upon a "hiring contract made without any conditions, the broker employed in the usual way"; held misleading, since instruction should have been based on a particular contract. Hopewell Heights Dev. Co. v. Kagey-Marshall Realty Co., 102 S. E. 82, - Va. Sup. - .

(51) In a broker's action for commission involving questions of whether the broker was the procuring cause, instruction to find for broker, if he was "instrumental" in bringing the owner and purchaser together; held, erroneous, in that broker is permitted thereby to recover commission on sale with which he was only remotely connected, and which was not induced or procured by his efforts, since broker may be "instrumental" in selling property, without having anything to do with finding a purchaser, so as to be the procuring cause thereof. Low v. Paddock, 220 S. W. 969, - Mo. App. - .

(52) In broker's action for compensation for procuring party to land exchange transaction, instruction that broker could not recover railroad fare and expenses on trip to show the properties to be exchanged to defendant; held, misleading. Morrison v. Jackson 85 S. 573, - Ala. App. - .