A mere volunteer, though he brings the parties together and is the efficient means of procuring a sale, a lease, or an exchange of property, is not entitled to a commission. Albert Booth Cohn v. Lee, 117 N. Y. S. 550; Viley v. Pettit, 96 Ky. 576, 16 Ky. L. R. 650, 29 S. W. 438; Merrill v. Latham, 8 Colo. App. 263, 45 P. 524; Witherbee v. Walker, 42 Colo. 1, 93 P. 1118; Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63; Fordtran v. Stower, 113 S. W. 631 (Tex. C. A. '08); Ballentine v. Mercer, 130 Mo. App. 605, 109 S. W. 1037; Sharp v. Hoopes (N. J. Sup. '06), 64 A. 989; McClosky v. Thompson, 56 N. Y. S. 1076, 26 Misc. 735; Tinkham v. Knox, 18 N. Y. S. 433; Henderson v. Sonne-baum, 30 Pa. Sup. Ct. 182; Samuel v. Luckenbach, 205 Pa. St. 428, 54 A. 1091. Contra, Kinder v. Pope, 106 Mo. App. 536, 80 S. W. 315. See also Sec. 466.

No recovery can be had for services volunteered upon the chance of obtaining future employment. Such services are mere gratuities. Mechem on Ag. Sec. 600.

In the absence of a special contract, finding a purchaser is not enough to entitle to a commission where no sale was made. Haase v. Schneider, 98 N. Y. S. 587, 112 App. Div. 336; Pierce v. Thomas, 4 E. D. Smith, 354; Harris v. Reynolds (N. D. Sup. '07), 114 N. W. 369. Nor does receiving money as part payment on a contract of sale of real estate, and giving the broker a receipt therefor, make him the recipient's agent. Appeal of Jacquett, 3 Walk. (Pa.), 13. See also Sec. 399.

Though a mere volunteer can not recover for services rendered without a contract of employment, yet if the owner of property knows that the alleged volunteer is a broker, and is trying to effect a sale, and expects compensation, and it appears that the owner encouraged the broker and led him to believe that he would be compensated, a contract will be implied, if a sale is consummated by the broker. Knott v. Lake Shore & M. S. By. Co., 172 I11. App. 550.

Where an owner did not ask the real estate agent's assistance in finding a purchaser for land, and refused his request to lease the land, a contract of employment could not be inferred from the owner's knowledge that the agent was about to take a customer and show the farm with a view of making an offer. Walsh & Griffen Co. v. Collenbaugh,, 130 N. W. 792, 150 Iowa, 692.

Negotiations by a broker employed to procure a purchaser with agents of one who subsequently purchased the property are not equivalent to negotiations with the purchaser, where the agent had no authority to represent or act for the purchaser. Haase v. Ullman, 131 N. Y. Sup. 1050, 148 App. Div. 40.