Defendant, after authorizing plaintiff and other brokers to sell land, made a contract with a purchaser to convey, in which it was specified, with plaintiff's consent, that the contract should be void by the other brokers claiming commissions, which they did. The contract as written was marked "void," but at the same time defendant and the purchaser executed another writing identical in terms with the first agreement, except that the provision that it should be void on the other brokers claiming commissions was omitted, the deposit made by the purchaser on execution of the first contract being retained. Held, That, though defendant could have annulled the contract when the other brokers claimed commissions, and thus have escaped liability, he did not do so, and that plaintiff was entitled to his commissions, the mere transcribing of the agreement not amounting to a new contract. Field v. Walford, 131 Mo. App. 391, 111 S. W. 523.