The relation of principal and agent arises out of contract. T and W entered into an agreement with O to sell real estate for him within a certain time, and before the expiration of the time O requested the return of the agreement; W offered to purchase the land himself rather than lose the sale. Held, that the offer was not equivalent to a sale, the relation between the parties was that of principal and agent, and could not, without O's consent, be changed into that of vendor and purchaser. Tower v. O'Neil, 66 Pa. St. 332. A broker who asks and obtains from the owner the price of land, that alone does not establish the relation of principal and agent; nor a contract of employment. Stephens v. Bailey, 149 Ala. 256, 42 S. 740; Denton v. Abrams, 105 N. Y. S. 2, 120 App. Div. 593. Nor does one who takes an option to purchase real estate at a stated price sustain the relation of agent for the vendor to negotiate its sale. Southack v. Lane, 52 N. Y. S. 687, 23 Misc. 515, r. on o. gr. 65 N. Y. S. 629, 32 Misc. 141; Davenport v. Corbett, 98 N. Y. S. 403, 112 App. Div. 382.

An option and title bond taken by an agent to insure the carrying of a sale into effect, if made, does not change the relation of principal and agent, and the principal remains liable for the fraud of the agent. Alger v. Anderson, 78 Fed. 729.

The rule that a sale by a party direct, leaves the broker's right to commissions intact, where the latter has furnished the purchaser, and has thus been the procuring cause of the sale, presupposes a relationship of principal and agent, and hence, where that relationship does not exist, the rule does not apply. Pecos Valley Imp. Co. v. Cecil (N. M. Sup. '09), 99 P. 695.

In the absence of a provision in the broker's contract of employment giving him an exclusive agency, the principal may act independently of the broker. Auerboch v. International Wolfrom Lampen Aktien Gessellachaft, 177 F. 458.

The rule that a broker may collect a commission from both parties, where he is not called upon to exercise his discretion, can not be applied to an action for commissions, in the absence of proof in the record to disclose the nature of the agreement or character of the relations between plaintiff and defendant. Swain v. Whitney, 192 I11. App. 605.

Where a broker acted for both parties in an exchange of property, his knowledge of the true amount of special taxes on defendant's lots, the amount of which defendant had misrepresented to plaintiff, was not notice of the true amount to plaintiff. Woteshek v. Neumann, 138 N. W. 1000, 151 Wis. 365.

Knowledge of a real estate agent previously acquired concerning land which the owner agreed to accept in part payment for land sold by the agent, is not acquired in the course of the agent's employment so as to be imputed to the owner. Gavin v. Brechler, 149 N. W. 740, 159 Wis. 157.

Where a contract for the sale of land provided that the owner should accept other lands in part payment, but gave him the right to reject the land and recover a cash payment, if it was not as represented, knowledge of the owner's agent that the land was not as represented can not defeat his right to reject the land. Id.

Knowledge by a broker for an exchange of property of facts which he agreed with the other party to conceal from his principal is not imputed to the principal. Brazeau v. McBride, 151 N. W. 253, 160 Wis. 204.

A contract providing that one party agrees to sell lands to another for a certain sum, for which the first party shall receive a stipulated commission, creates the relation of principal and agent. Craig v. Parsons, 161 P. 1117, - N. M. Sup. - .

Where one engages another to find a purchaser for property, and he negotiates a sale, such person, with or without compensation, procures a purchaser, and owner makes a sale on terms reached under the negotiations, the owner and the one procuring the purchaser stood in the relation of principal and agent, and agent was not a mere middleman. Arthur v. Ga. Cotton Co., 96 S. E. 232, - Ga. App. - .