(1) The refusal of an instruction on plaintiffs right to recover commission sued for; held, not error. Glaum v. Skang, 152 N W. 760, 129 Minn. 377.

(2) Where a broker suing for compensation alleged a contract fixing no time for completion, instructions, with some support in evidence, on the theory that defendant withdrew the land from sale, and so notified the purchaser, were properly refused under the answer, pleading an agreement which, defendant claimed, expired by limitation of time without performance, but not averring rescission of the contract alleged by the broker and the giving of notice thereof. Ball v. Olson, 114 P. 638, 58 Or. 464.

(3) Plaintiffs, who were authorized to sell land for defendants, were not parties to a written contract between defendants and the purchaser, alleged to have been written in the form of an agency contract to sell, binding the purchasers to purchase the land unsold after specified time, in order to deprive plaintiffs of their right to commissions. Held, that a requested charge that if the jury did not believe that the purchaser contracted to purchase the lands from defendants, and that defendants conspired to write the contract in the form adopted, in order to defraud plaintiffs out of their commission, the jury should find for defendants, was properly refused as erroneously requiring plaintiffs to prove, as a condition of their right to recover, that the written contract was prepared to cheat and defraud them, and their cause of action being complete on proof that their purchaser agreed with the owner to buy on the terms authorized, and was ready, willing and able to do so, independent of the written agreement. Pope v. Ansley Realty Co., 135 S. W. 1103, judg. rev., 151 S. W. 525, 105 Tex. 440.

(4) An instruction involving the good faith of the principal in revoking the authority of the broker; held, properly refused. Howard v. Street, 93 A. 923, 125 Md. 289.

(5) In a broker's action for commission, instructions as to the necessity that prospective purchaser be able to complete purchase; held, properly refused as misleading, in view of the evidence. Bike v. McHugh & Groom, 66 S. 452, 188 Ala. 237.

(5a.) In an action for brokerage commissions on an exchange of real estate, a requested instruction based on the theory that the contract consummated between the defendant and purchaser was wholly different from the contract contemplated between the broker and the purchaser; held, properly refused, the contract of exchange not being wholly different from the contract as contemplated between the broker and purchaser. Waddell v. Noser, 188 I11. App. 302.

(6) A requested instruction that a person employed to make a sale of property is not entitled to a commission, where he is not the efficient cause of the consummation of the transaction; held, properly refused, as tending to cause the jury to believe that plaintiff was not entitled to recover, unless he had directly brought about the trade exactly as consummated. Id.

(7) Instruction in a broker's action for commission as to the procuring cause of the sale; held, properly refused, in view of the indefiniteness resulting from the unexplained use of the word "contributed." G. L. & H. J. Gross v. Tillinghast, 86 A. 721, 35 E. I. 298.

(8) Defendant's requested instruction in an action for commission for obtaining a purchaser for land who, after making a payment, declined to consummate the purchase, assigning as a reason that the land did not all lie in one body, that unless owner or someone authorized by him represented to the purchaser that the land lay in a body, or ratified such representation, if such was made, plaintiff could not recover, was properly refused, it not being necessary, as assumed, that plaintiff, or someone authorized by him, represented that the land so lay, etc., as there might be a recovery, though no such representation was made by any one. Agee v. Messer-Moore Ins. & R. E. Co., 51 S. 829, 165 Ala. 291.

(9) Where, in an action for broker's services in negotiating an exchange of real property, the evidence showed an unconditional and enforceable contract, the court did not err in refusing to charge, that if the sale was not performed by the purchaser, through no fault of defendant, plaintiff could not recover. Teve-baugh v. Smith Land Co., 163 S. W. 664, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(10) Instruction authorizing recovery by broker if the failure to carry out the contract of sale was due either to the fault of the owner of the purchaser; held, properly refused, as the owner could not be held liable for the default or misconduct of the purchaser. Middle Atlan. Emi. Co. v. Ardan, 78 S. E. 588, 115 Va. 148.

(11) Instruction as to broker's duty to sue for the enforcement of a contract, and as to his liability where the purchaser failed to carry out the contract; held, properly refused. Id.

(12) In an action for commissions for procuring a purchaser for real estate, the refusal of an instruction assessing damages as requested was proper, where the amount stated was more than the ad damnum. Miller v. Miller, 190 I11. App. 363.

(13) In broker's action against owners for commission, a requested instruction that broker serving both parties could not recover, etc., held, not required by evidence that plaintiff referred to prospective tenant as his client, and that he should be paid for negotiating the sale of fixtures between such tenant and the former accupant, where no commission was paid or demanded from such tenant. Symes Inv. Co. v. De Sollar, 165 P. 985, - Colo. Sup. - .

(14) The refusal of an instruction that if, after securing contract to make lease of theater, the landowner hired broker's agent, etc., was not error where the commission was payable to the brokers and not to their agent, for such employment could not release obligation for payment of commission. Brady v. Richey & Casey, 202 S. W. 170, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(15) In an action by a broker for compensation for an exchange, which failed because of defects in title, a requested instruction using the word "complete" abstract, which was not in the agreement to furnish, was properly refused, the parties Having understood that there were one or more incumbrances on each piece to be exchanged, that the phrase "complete" abstract might have instructed the jury that a perfect title was required. Umpire Sec. Co. v. Webb, 81 S. 51, - Ala. Sup. - .

(16) Evidence held to show that after the agreement for the broker to stand aside and let the principals complete the negotiations begun, the defendant did not consider the agency terminated, but stated that a commission would be paid, so that a peremptory instruction for defendant was properly refused. kirby Lumber Co. v. West, 220 S. W. 639, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(17) In an action for broker's commission for procuring a purchaser ready and able to buy, though the owner refused to sell, a requested instruction that the burden was on plaintiff to prove that she sold defendant's farm was erroneous, and properly refused. Brown v. Russell, 221 S. W. 791, - Mo. App. - .

(18) In a broker's action for compensation, broker's requested instruction submitting an issue of the case; held, properly refused as misleading. Morrison v. Jackson, 85 S. 573, - Ala. Sup. - .

(19) Instruction as to broker being the procuring cause; held misleading, and therefore properly refused. Id.

(20) In an action by a broker employed to find a purchaser for realty, a requested instruction, that if plaintiff attempted to interest the purchaser, but did not succeed in inducing him "to negotiate with the owner" for its purchase, and thereafter the other agents, by their efforts, effected a sale, the plaintiff would be entitled to the commission, which the jury might have understood as implying that plaintiff's failure to introduce the purchaser to the owner would defeat a recovery, was properly rejected. Osburn v. Moore, 193 P. 892, - Kan. Sup. - .