Plaintiff authorized defendants to sell his land for a cash payment and notes, and on their representation that they had found a purchaser, and the cash payment and notes were ready to be delivered to him, executed and gave them a bond for title, blank as to the name of the purchaser; defendant failed to deliver the cash and notes on demand of plaintiff, and afterwards filled in the bond with the name of a purchaser. Held, that defendants' authority as plaintiff's agents to use the bond for title determined when they failed to deliver the cash and notes. Patton v. Cook, 83 Iowa, 71, 48 N. W. 994.

An agent employed to sell land, who becomes the purchaser and conceals from the principal that a greater price might have been got from another, is guilty of fraud, and the con-tract ought to be vacated; he will be compelled to reconvey the land on payment of the purchase money, or so much as has been paid, and to account for the rents and profits received by him. Moseley v. Buck, 3 Munf. (Va.) 232; Rod-man v. Manning (Or. Sup. '09), 99 P. 657, 1135.

Where one intrusts money to an agent to purchase land for him, it is a fraud for the agent to purchase the land in his own name and for his own benefit, and equity will interpose for the relief of the principal by compelling a conveyance to him of the land so purchased by the agent. Rhea v. Puryear, 26 Ark. 344; White v. Ward, 26 Ark. 445; Harrison v. Craven, 188 Mo. 590, 875 S. W. 962.

If an agent effects a sale of the land of his principal by false representations, or other fraud, without the authority or knowledge of the principal, the latter is chargeable with such fraud, in the same manner as if he had known or authorized it. Law v. Grant, 37 Wis. 548; Bagley v. Paris, 179 P. 795, - Wash. Sup. - . Compare Harrison v. Lakeman, 189 Mo. 581, 88 S. W. 53. Where one takes a conveyance from an agent authorized to sell and convey the land, knowing of the fraud or breach of trust of the agent, he can not insist on the validity of the sale. Morris v. Terrill, 2 Rand. (Va.), 6. See also Sec. 845.

Defendant contracted with the owner of land for an option on it for a certain time, and at a certain price, and, if he effected a sale, he was to receive a commission therefor; also, for an extension of the time he should pay $200 which, in case he should "buy the land or find a purchaser" therefor, was to be deducted from the price; defendant then contracted with plaintiff, a non-resident, to "procure the purchase for and conveyance to" plaintiff of the land in question at a much higher price, to act as plaintiff's agent in the management of the land, that all the proceeds of the sales should be applied to the reimbursement of plaintiff, with five per cent. interest and expenses; that the surplus should be equally divided between plaintiff and defendant; defendant appropriated the difference between the amount received from plaintiff and the sum paid to the vendor, concealing from plaintiff the difference in price. Held. that plaintiff could recover the amount so retained by the fraud of the defendant. Hewitt v. Young, 82 Iowa, 224, 47 N. W. 1084; DeL'Archerie v. Rutherford (Wash. '09), 102 P. 1033.

An agent for the owner of real estate conducted a negotiation for the sale of the same on behalf of the owner, on the one hand, and was really, on the other hand, purchasing for himself, jointly with an ostensible purchaser, although the transaction purported to be entirely between the owner and such ostensible purchaser. Held, that the transaction was a constructive fraud upon the owner, and that a purchase thus made could not be sustained. Hughes v. Washington, 72 I11. 84.

Where a real estate agent was acting under a contract with the owner of a lot, by which he was to receive a certain commission in the event he should sell the lot for not less than a certain sum, it was his duty before changing that contract for another more advantageous to himself, to impart to his principal all the information which he had, and especially to inform the principal of negotiations then pending for a sale of the lot, and his failure to do so was a fraud upon the principal's rights, and relieved the principal from all obligations to perform the new contract. Edmonson v. Baker, 12 Ky. L. R. (abst.) 93.

Defendant applied to a real estate agent for a mortgage loan; three unsatisfied mortgages were to be paid with the proceeds of the loan; plaintiff agreed with the agent to make the loan and gave the agent a check for the amount, taking a mortgage on the property, the agent assuring him that he would search the title and see that plaintiff had a first mortgage, but not informing him of the outstanding incumbrances; on execution of the mortgage defendant instructed the agent to pay off the three outstanding mortgages with a part of the money in his possession; the agent paid off one of the three mortgages only and appropriated the rest of the money. Held, that the payment of the amount of the loan to the agent was a payment to him as agent of defendant. Henker v. Schwicker, 73 N. Y. S. 656, 67 App. Div. 196; affirmed 174 N. Y. 298, 66 N. E. 971.

In a suit against a real estate broker, a lawyer, by a former customer or client, to vacate certain deeds procured by him to be executed by her in his interest, and for the cancellation of an alleged compromise agreement confirming such deeds, it was held that, on a review of the evidence, showing, among other things, that the defendant had purchased one interest from the complainant for $1,175, worth $2,000, and that shortly prior thereto, he had collected over $800 for her, for which he failed to account, that whether, in view of the fiduciary relations of the defendant to the complainant, the burden was on him to show the validity of the transaction, the testimony, as a whole, was sufficient to justify a decree vacating the deeds and cancelling the agreement. Holtzman v. Linton, 27 App. D. C. 241.