Plaintiff, the owner of land, entered into a contract with defendant and his partner, by the terms of which the defendant and his partner were to sink a well on the land, install a pumping plant, and develop water upon the premises, they to pay all the expenses and were to subdivide and sell the premises, in consideration of which they were to have the exclusive handling and sale thereof, and the net proceeds of the sale of the land and crops raised thereon, after first paying plaintiff the first cost of the land, were to be divided equally between plaintiff and defendant's firm. Defendant's firm was given the option to make such terms of sale as they might deem proper, subject to certain restrictions, and the contract provided that if the property should not be subdivided and sold by defendant's firm at a sooner date, the contract should remain in force for two years, and for such further time as might be agreed upon at the end of that period. Held, that the contract was nothing more than an agreement of agency whereby defendant's firm, in consideration of money and services to be given by them, were given the exclusive right to sell the land for a compensation to be measured by the price realized. They had no interest, legal or equitable, in the land; at least, after the expiration of the time limited by the parties. Hicks v. Post (154 Cal. 22), 96 P. 878.

A contract to pay a commission for a broker's effecting a contract was based upon sufficient consideration where the broker agreed to act as agent in "negotiating an exchange" of property and securing a binding agreement of a third person to make an exchange. Lundeen v. Ottis, 128 P. 335, 164 Cal. 183.

In an action by a broker for a commission, held not to show that plaintiff's only authority was to secure a purchaser at a stated amount, but that the agency was a general one, and plaintiff was entitled to his commission, irrespective of the price actually obtained and accepted by defendant. Prindle v. Allen, 129 N. W. 695, 164 Mich. 553.