A real estate agent who undertakes to sell the realty of his principal without legal authority to bind such principal, does not render him responsible for any defect in the title of the principal. In the absence of evidence of other damages the measure of the agent's liability to the purchaser in such case is the excess of the market value of the principal's title, whether good or bad, over the contract price. Gestring v. Fisher, 46 Mo. App. 603.

In an action against an agent for fraudulent representations as to the location of real estate sold by him to plaintiff, after a disaffirmance of the contract, the measure of damages is the actual loss sustained, and not the difference between the actual value of the property conveyed and the price. Roberts v. Hol-liday, 10 S. D. 576, 74 N. W. 1034; Duncan v. Holder (N. M. '10), 107 P. 685.

A contract authorized the plaintiffs to sell a tract of land of seven thousand acres, and provided that the tract should be subdivided, and an asking price agreed on for the smaller tracts; plaintiffs were to have five per cent. for lands sold at the minimum price, and one-half of the excess for those sold above that price, but no commissions on the value of the improvements; plaintiff sold and defendant conveyed to the purchasers large quantities of the land, but he revoked the contract before all the land had been surveyed or the time expired. Held, that it was not contemplated that the land should all be surveyed and subdivided before sales were made, and the fact that it had not all been surveyed did not authorize revoking the contract; it appearing that plaintiff would probably have sold all the lands within the time limited, their damages should be computed at one-half the difference between what the lands would have brought at the average price of that already sold and the minimum price, excluding the two hundred acres with the improvements, and deducting the probable expense of selling and the amount already paid by defendant. McLane v. Maurier, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 75, 66 S. W. 693, 1108.

In order to entitle the prospective purchaser of a lot to damages from an agent for his breach of his contract of agency to purchase the lot, the damages must be such as are the probable and natural result of the breach, and where the defendant was to purchase the lot for plaintiff at not to exceed a certain price, and purchased it at a less price, and took the title in his own name and refused to transfer it to plaintiff, whose purpose in buying the lot was to erect a sanitarium thereon, plaintiff can not recover as damages the difference in the price of material and labor between the date of the contract and the time of the suit, time being not of the essence of the contract, and plaintiff having at the time no contract for the building at a fixed price, and there being no allegation or proof that defendant knew that the price of labor and material was going up, or that plaintiff was bound by a contract to build, which he was to perform within a certain time, those damages are, under the circumstances, too remote and speculative to be attributed to defendant's breach of the contract. Harrison v. Craven, 188 Mo. 590, 87 S. W. 962.

In an action for damages for the revocation of authority to sell land, nothing more than nominal damages can be recovered, when the agent fails to show that he could have made a sale on the principal's terms. Milligan v. Owens, 123 Iowa 285, 98 N. W. 792.

In the case of a breach by a vendor of his contract to convey, the measure of plaintiff's damages is the amount which he would have received as compensation had defendant complied with his contract. Atkinson v. Peck, 114 N. C. 597, 19 S. E. 628; Young v. Metcalf Land Co. (N. D. Sup. '09), 122 N. W. 1101; Harris v. Van Vranken, 155 N. W. 65, 32 N. D. 238; Swartz v. Park, 159 S. W. 338, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Justy v. Erro, 117 P. 575, 16 Cal. App. 519; Goldman v. Weisman, 143 N. W. 983, 123 Minn. 370; Van Patten v. Taber, 130 N. Y. Sup.

1055, 71 Misc. Rep. 610; Park v. Swartz, 222 S. W. 156, - Tex. Civ. App. - . Where an agent in completing a contract for his principal for the sale of her real estate, secures the agreed compensation, with the exception of taking a different security for the deferred payment amounting to $730 and interest, the measure of damages resulting to the principal from the act of the agent is the difference in value between the security contracted for and that recovered, not exceeding $730. Lunn v. Guthrie, 88 N. W. 1060, 115 Iowa, 501; Hindrich v. Brady (S. D. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 777.

For the breach of a contract to pay a real estate agent a specified sum as commissions for finding a purchaser, the measure of damages is the commission agreed to be paid. Tuffree v. Bind-ford, 130 Iowa, 532, 107 N. W. 425; Davis v. Roseberry, 148 P. 629, 95 Kan. 411. Where a broker employed to sell land was to receive as his compensation anything that he could obtain for the land above a specified sum, in an action against the landowner for failure to perform the contract with the purchaser produced by plaintiff, the measure of damages was the amount of the commissions earned and lost. Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 231, 96 S. W. 228; Canfield v. Orange, 13 N. D. 622, 102 N. W. 313; Jones v. Hedstrom, 131 P. 145, 89 Kan. 294. The measure of damages for the breach of a contract employing a broker to sell land is either the compensation fixed by the contract, or a reasonable compensation for his services. Dal v. Fisher (S. D. Supreme '06), 107 N. W. 534; Hancock v. Stacey (Tex. Sup. '10), 125 S. W. 884; Johnson v. Buchanan (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 875; Ga. Iron & Steel Co. v. Rogers, Brown & Co., 77 S. E. 213, 12 Ga. App. 429; E. A. Strout Farm Agency v. De Forrest, 183 N. Y. Sup. 119.

The expenses incurred by the broker in advertising and selling a client's land are not elements of damages, in an action to recover commissions alleged to have been lost by his client's refusal to convey to the purchaser whom the broker had obtained, and hence the admission of evidence of such expenses is prejudicial error. Burnet v. Foiling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775. In an action by a real estate broker for commissions, it was error to tell the jury, in answer to questions by their foreman, that they were not bound by any rule in fixing damages, as the court should have charged them that the rule was the customary commissions in such cases, or if the evidence was insufficient on that ground, what would be a fair compensation. Hartman v. Warner, 75 Conn. 197, 52 A. 719. Defendant prior to his purchase of certain land contracted to pay plaintiff, who negotiated the purchase, one-third of the profits to be derived from a subsequent sale thereof, no time for the sale was fixed, and defendant having died without making a sale, his personal representative repudiated the plaintiff's interest and refused to sell, though the property had largely increased in value. Held, that decedent under the contract was required to make a sale within a reasonable time, and after repudiation of plaintiff's rights, he was entitled to recover one-third of the value of the land in cash, after deducting the purchase price, taxes and interest. Kaufman v. Bailie, 46 Wash. 248, 89 P. 548.