A real estate broker employed to sell land inquired whether his principal had an abstract of title, and was told by her that she saw no necessity for sending an abstract until a sale was made; on his securing a prospective purchaser and requesting that an abstract be sent, the owner forwarded an entire, complete abstract, which the broker procured to be extended to date; the sale was not consummated. Held, that the broker was not entitled to recover for his outlay in perfecting the abstract. Parks v. Hogle, 124 Iowa, 98, 99 N. W. 185. A purchaser for a tract of land has no right to impose upon the owner the obligation to furnish an abstract of title when not authorized by the contract. Hunt v. Tuttle, 133 Iowa, 647, 110 N. W. 1026.

In the case of an agency contract for the sale of land, a stipulation in a letter written by third person to broker of seller, as to terms of contract of sale, that seller should furnish an abstract of title; held, not sufficiently important to affect the validity of a transaction involving more than $20,000. Edmundson v. Phenix, 178 N. W. 893, - Minn. Sup. - .

Where an exchange of properties was defeated through insistence that the -purchaser should furnish an abstract of title, no commission was earned by the broker. Marple v. Ives, 111 Iowa, 602, 82 N. W. 1017.