If a real estate agent authorized to sell land at a given price, three years after, when the value has greatly advanced, and is rapidly rising, sells the same at the price named, and at a great sacrifice, without informing his principal of the rise in value, this would be such a fraud upon the principal that a court of equity would refuse to enforce a conveyance to the purchaser. Proudfoot v. Wightman, 78 I11. 553.

In an action by a broker for commissions for procuring a purchaser, the broker made no pretence that defendant employed him, but asserted that he was acting at the instance of the purchaser; notwithstanding the express unwillingness of defendant to make the sale, he testified that, without the knowledge of defendant, he called the purchaser's attention to his right to purchase as stipulated in the lease; that defendant refused to convey, claiming that she was not bound by the lease, that the broker urged the purchaser's claim, and that defendant yielded when advised by her counsel so to do. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions. Morris v. Poundt, 99 N. Y. S. 844, 51 Misc. 6; Enake v. Griswold, 93 N. Y. S. 459, 104 App. Div. 137; Horten v. Loftier, 31 App. D. C. 362.

In an action by a grantor of realty to set aside a sale, on the ground that the agent employed by her to secure a purchaser, in fact purchased the property, while she thought the sale was being made to another; it appeared that the agent had induced her to sign a contract of purchase with such other party, the agent agreeing to execute with the other a bond accompanying a mortgage which was to be given to the grantor; subsequently, a deed was given running to the agent; the bond was signed by the agent and the other, and the mortgage signed by the agent alone was kept by him for the purpose of record; after the grantor learned that the deed ran to the agent she informed him, on the payment of the interest on the purchase money and mortgage given by him, that she would put the money in bank until she got her property back, and stated that she was going to consult a lawyer. Held, that the acceptance of the money did not constitute a ratification of the transaction. Clark v. Bird, 72 N. Y. S. 769, 66 App. Div. 284.

Where defendants, land brokers, having option on land, induced plaintiff to purchase land at what they represented to be option price, but which, in fact, was in excess thereof, under a contract whereby brokers were to use their best efforts to resell land, and upon sale were to share in the profits, and where defendants having, without plaintiff's knowledge, received the difference between the option and purchase price, for more than nine years made no substantial effort to procure a purchaser, they were guilty of laches. Armstrong v. Lownsbery, Simmons & Co., 173 N. W. 890, - Iowa Sup. - .