There being evidence tending to show that the real estate agent had first agreed with another person to procure a purchaser, and that all of them should have an interest in the land and should divide it into lots and sell it for a profit, and that subsequently such third person stated to the real estate agent that the contemplated purchaser who would furnish the money to pay for the land and whose name was not divulged to the agent was unwilling for the agent to be interested in the enterprise, and that thereupon it was agreed between the agent and the person with whom he was dealing, that the latter would pay a certain amount to the former, in consideration and in satisfaction of his commission on relinquishing any further claim of interest, which he did; in a suit by the agent against the person making such agreement, and others, there was no error relatively to such person in refusing to grant a non-suit or direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. Mitchell v. Gifford (Ga. Sup. '10), 67 S. E. 197 (Syllabus).

A broker made negotiations for an exchange of property between 0. and defendants. 0. agreed to pay to the broker and his partner $4,650 commission when the property was transferred. Defendants refused to execute the contract unless the broker would accept $1,500, as his share of the commission out of the $4,650, to be retained by defendants, with the consent of O. to pay the commission. The broker finally accepted the written promise of defendants to pay him $1,500 on the signing of the contract with O. Held, that in an action by the broker to recover $1,500, a non-suit was made, on the ground that, if the agreement to pay that sum is to be construed, in connection with the agreement of the defendants to pay $4,650 to the broker and his partner, the plaintiff must fail, because he has not proved performance of the agreement to pay $4,650, and was properly refused a non-performance by defendants, and their contract with O. not releasing them from performing their contract with plaintiff. Semkin v. Hollarder, 81 A. 980, 82 N. J. Law, 485.