Defendant brokers, being authorized by plaintiff to sell land for $2,300, intrusted the matter to G, an employee, who persuaded one S to take the land for $2,300, promising that defendants would raise the money for him; defendants failed to raise the money, whereupon S begged G to find some one to take the contract off his hands and save him the $100 paid to plaintiff; defendants having then disposed of part of the land for $600, H, another employe of defendants, with knowledge of the facts, agreed to take over the contract, S to take another part of the land for $600, counting in his $100 paid; these two sales for $600 each amounted to half of the land; plaintiff not knowing that H was an employe of defendants gave him a deed and received from him $2,300, less $200 commissions paid to defendants; H later sold the rest of the land for $2,100. Held, that defendants and H were guilty of a legal fraud on plaintiff, and must, as trustees, account to him for the profits realized. Powers v. Black, 159 Pa. St. 153, 28 A. 133.

An agent who takes a conveyance in his own name will he charged as holding it in trust for his principal. Sweet v. Ja-cocks, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 355; Church v. Sterling, 16 Conn. 388; Pinnock v. Clough, 16 Vt. 500; Switzer v. Skiles, 3 Gilm. (I11.) 529; Follansbee v. Kilbreath, 17 I11. 522. Compare 1st Bank v. Bissell, 2 McCrary (U. S.), 73.

A mortgage note was given to a real estate broker by the mortgagee for collection, and the mortgagor also placed the land in said broker's hands for private sale; a private sale which the broker attempted to make having failed, on account of a defect in the title, and the mortgagor having ceased to trust or rely on the broker, the latter had the property sold under a power in the mortgage, and it was bought by a third person not in privity with the broker. Held, that the broker was not guilty of a breach of trust. Ritchie v. Judd, 137 I11. 453, 27 N. E. 682. An agent who has invested his principal's money in land and taken the title in his own name, will not be allowed to set up the statute of frauds against the enforcement of the trust, on the ground that the agency was without written authority. Firestone v. Firestone, 49 Ala. 128.

A trustee for the sale of assets for the payment of debts who purchased them himself by taking undue advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the plaintiff, and before the completion of the contract sold them at a highly advanced price, was decreed to be a trustee for the original vendor as to the sums produced by such second sale. Fox v. Mackreth, 2 Brown Ch. (Eng.), 400. Where plaintiff employed defendant as his agent to purchase certain property, and defendant falsely represented to the seller that it was necessary that he should take the title, and wrongfully procured the deed to be made in his own name, he held title as a trustee ex maleficio, and was liable at the suit of the plaintiff to be compelled to convey. Harrison v. Craven, 188 Mo. 590, 87 S. W. 962.

A co-agent, under a power to sell, is not bound by an authorized option not given or ratified by himself, and if he purchases the land himself can not be held as a trustee for a claimant under the option. Tibbs v. Zirkle, 55 W. Va. 49, 46 S. E. 701, 104 Am. St. R. 977. Where real estate was transferred to a trustee to hold or convey the same as he thought best, items paid real estate agents and others as commissions on sales of real estate, which were shown to be reasonable commissions for the services rendered, were properly charged against the trust estate. Babbitt v. Fidelity Trust Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 651, 66 A. 1076.

If one who is clearly the agent for another to purchase property repudiates the agency and acts for himself, using his own funds, he can not be declared a trustee for his principal, although the latter may have been misled by the conduct of the former. First Bank v. Bissett, 2 McCrary (U. S.), 73. Compare Hutchison v. Hutchison. 4 Desau. (S. C.), 77. In the absence of a specific agreement therefor, a broker who procures a loan for the benefit of a trust estate has no lien on such estate for his commission, his remedy being against the trustee personally. Johnson v. Leman, 131 I11. 609, 23 N. E. 435.

The relations between an agent for the sale of lands and his principal are of a fiduciary nature, and the agent's acts in the course of his employment are governed by the same rules as those of a trustee. Butler v. Agnew, 99 P. 395, 9 Colo. App. 327; Coppage v. Howard, 96 A. 642, 127 Md. 512; Ebert v. Haskell, 104 N. E. 556, 217 Mass. 209.

A broker in whom a party reposes no special trust or confidence need not, as a matter of law, disclose his agency for the other in order to be entitled to a commission. Rosenbaum v. Sarasohn, 171 N. Y. Sup. 629.

Where a broker took from owners a deed to their property to enable him to transfer it for them on making an authorized trade or sale, he was not only their agent but held the property as trustee for them, and could not purchase himself, nor sell or trade for any property in which he was interested without fully informing them and securing full value. Davenport v. Casey, 222 S. W. 791, - Mo. Sup. - .