This section is from the book "American Law Of Real Estate Agency", by William Slee Walker. Also available from Amazon: American law of real estate agency.
An interest in the land itself, as distinguished from the proceeds of it, is the distinguishing feature of a power coupled with an interest. Hunt v. Ronsmanier, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 174; Beck v. Howard, 178 N. W. 579, - S. D. Sup. - . A contract was held to be coupled with an interest where a broker was employed to sell land procured in an exchange, the services rendered by him in effecting the trade being in part the consideration for the second employment, and such employment could not be revoked at the mere pleasure of the principal. Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa, 703, 87 N. W. 414. An agent to receive half the profits for selling land is given an interest only in the profits of the land sold, not in that unsold. Bickford v. Searles, 41 N. Y. S. 148, 9 App. Div. 158, 75 N. Y. St. 606. Authority to retain commissions from the purchase money is not a power coupled with an interest. Hall v. Gambrill, 92 Fed. 32, 34 C. C. A. 190. One authorized to lay off land into lots and sell, the proceeds above a certain amount to be divided with the owner, has not a power coupled with an interest. Lemoyne v. Quimby, 70 I11. 399; Green v. Cole, 103 Mo. 70, 15 S. W. 317. It therefore follows that mere commissions to be earned by the agent in selling property do not constitute an agency coupled with an interest. Rowan v. Hull, 55 W. Va. 335, 47 S. E. 92; Lindheim v. Cen. Nat. Realty, etc. Co., 97 N. Y. S. 619, 111 App. Div. 275; Mueller & Martin v. Goddard, 130 S. W. 1083, 140 Ky. 238; W. B. Martin & Son v. Lamkin, 188 I11. App. 431; Chase v. Chapman, 131 P. 615, 89 Kan. 196; Alexander v. Sherwood Co., 77 S. E. 1027, 72 W. Va. 195, 49 L. R. A. (1ST. S.) 985.
Agreement whereby land broker was given the exclusive right to sell land for a period of one year, in consideration of an advancement of money wherewith to develop and advertise the land, and whereby broker was to have a stipulated share of the profits, after owner received a specified amount of proceeds of sale, was not an agency agreement so coupled with an interest as to make it irrevocable. Atlantic Coast Realty Co. v. Townsend, 98 S. E. 684, - Va. Sup. - .
 
Continue to: