Defendant employed plaintiff to sell his farm and some personal property, on an understanding that the plaintiff should receive a certain commission if he could procure a purchaser for $18,000, otherwise nothing; plaintiff secured a purchaser who bid $17,000 for the farm and defendant rejected the offer, and falsely represented to plaintiff that he had concluded to keep the property and settled with plaintiff for a nominal sum; defendant then approached the bidder and sold him the farm and some personal property for $17,500, and sold the remainder of the personal property on the public market for $720. Held, that the statement having been fraudulently made, defendant was liable for the agreed commission. Bowe v. Gage, 132 Wis. 441, 112 N. W. 469; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 145; McDermott v. Mahoney, 139 Iowa, 292, 115 N. W. 32; McGovern v. Bennett, 146 Mich. 558, 109 N. W. 1055, 13 D. L. N. 853.

If a principal, in order to defraud the broker of his right to a commission, conveys the property to a third person for the benefit of the customer found by the broker, and the reason for the act being to conceal the same from the knowledge of the broker, the latter may sue for the commission; and it was error to dismiss the complaint because the proof sustained an action for fraud and did not prove the cause of action alleged. Martin v. Fegan, 88 N. Y. S. 472, 95 App. Div. 154; Glade v. E. I11. Min. Co., 129 Mo. App. 443, 107 S. W. 1002. See also Sec. 487a. A principal conspiring with a sub-agent to deprive the broker of his commission is liable to the latter therefor. Haven v. Tartar, 124 Mo. App. 691, 102 S. W. 21. See also Secs. 362, 487a.

Eight to commission may not be defeated by the fraudulent act of owner in withdrawing the property from the broker prior to the making of a contract. Anderson v. Crow, 151 S. W. 1080, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Before a broker can be said to have earned his commission, he must produce a buyer within the time specified in terms of agency, if time is limited, ready, willing and able to purchase at price designated by principal, but if principal by fraud defeats broker's efforts, case does not come within such rule. Ramezzano v. Avnasino, 189 P. 681, - Nev. Sup. - .