Where a broker is employed to sell or exchange property the terms of the employment may require the completion of the contract or transfer of the title before compensation is earned, unless the act of the principal has prevented performance. Hyams v. Miller, 71 Ga. 608; Kerfoot v. Steele, 113 I11.

610; Jenkins v. Hollingsworth, 83 I11. App. 139; Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa, 202, 98 N. W. 724; Boyd v. Watson, 101 Iowa, 214, 70 N. W. 120; Stratton v. Sam'l. W. Jones Co., 20 Ky. L. E. 1787, 50 S. W. 33; De Santos v. Taney, 13 La. Ann. 151; Didson v. Duraldo, 2 Rob. (La.) 163; Carnes v. Howard, 180 Mass. 569, 63 N. E. 122; Kronenberger v. Bier-ling, 76 N. Y. S. 895, 37 Misc. 817; Feiner v. Kobke, 34 N. Y. S. 676, 13 Misc. 499; Pierce v. Truitt (Pa. Sup. '88), 12 A. 661; Michener v. Beiern, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 637; Brennam v. Perry, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 242; Lawler v. Armstrong (Wash. Sup. '09), 102 P. 775; Pratt v. Patterson, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 135; Owen v. Kuhn (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 72 S. W. 432; Morton v. Barney, 140 I11. App. 33; Thos. L. Reynolds Go. v. Toch, 121 N. Y. Sup. 85; Hopkins v. Settle, 149 P. 890, 46 Okl. 801; Cheek v. Nicholson, 133 S. W. 707, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636; Reeder v. Epps, 166 S. W. 747, 112 Ark. 566; Justy v. Erro, 117 P. 575, 16 Cal. App. 519; Perkins v. Russell, 137 P. 907, 56 Colo. 120; Nayl v. Small, 138 N. W. 849, 159 Iowa, 387; Green v. Fist, 132 P. 179, 89 Kan. 536; Duncan v. Turner, 154 S. W. 816, 171 Mo. App. 661; Tull v. Starmer, 176 S. W. 511, 188 Mo. App. 713; Ryer v. Ninningham, 75 A. 890, 78 N. J. Law, 742; Clark v. Rast Lake Lumber Co., 73 S. E. 793, 158 N. C. 139; Bailey v. Padgett, 70 S. 637, 195 Ala. 203; Posten v. Hall, 132 S. W. 1001, 97 Ark. 23; Watkins v. Pashalinsky, 76 A. 1104, 83 Conn. 458, 20 Ann. Cas. 1023; Fin-nerty v. Stratton's Est., 128 P. 667, 53 Colo. 17; Shinn v. Evans, 37 App. D. C. 304; Realty Bond & Finance Co. v. Point Richmond Canal & Land Co., 152 P. 413, 171 Cal. 238; Home Banking & Realty Co. v. Baum, 82 A. 970, 85 Conn. 383; Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 63 S. E. 248, 5 Ga. App. 340; Kesler v. Stultz, 84 S. E. 201, 15 Ga. App. 735; Myers v. Buell, 142 I11. App. 467; Haynes v. Oliver, 154 I11. App. 639; Reeve v. Fetzer, 139 N. W. 484, - Iowa Sup. -; Ketcham v. Axelson, 142 N. W. 62, 160 Iowa, 456; Johnson v. Huber, 103 P. 99, 80 Kan. 571; C. H. Graves & Co. v. Cook, 131 N. W. 854, 115 Minn. 34; Knight v. Brown, 147 N. Y. Sup. 628, 162 App. Div. 438; Levy v. Dunken Realty Co., 179 S. W. 679, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Low Moor Iron Co. of Va. v. Jackson, 84 S. E. 100, 117 Va. 76; Smith v. Adelberg, 130 P. 494, 72 Wash. 434; Fawver v. Fullingim, 149 S. W. 746; Pederson v. North Yakima & East Selah Irr. Co., 116 P. 279, 63 Wash. 636; Simmons v. Oneth, 124 S. W. 534, 140 Mo. App. 269; Duke v. Graham, 143 N. W. 817, 163 Iowa, 272; Hugill v. Weakley, 61 S. E. 360, 64 W. Va. 210, 15 L. E. A. (N. S.), 1262; Hicks v. Christeson, 164 P. 395, - Cal. Sup. -; Ash v. Oppmann, 199 I11. App. 573; Berry v. Hewitt, 210 I11. App. 170; Colvin v. Post Mtge. & Loan Co., 122 N. E. 454, 225 N. Y. 510, rev judg., 159 N. Y. Sup. 361, mot. to am. den., 123 N. E. 860; Hartman v. Selling, 189 P. 887, - Or. Sup. - . See also Sec. 536.

Where the contract makes the right to commissions dependent upon consummation, a broker can not recover commissions unless the contract has been consummated and the money paid. Lindley v. Fay, 119 Cal. 239, 51 P. 333; Ballard v. Shea, 121 I11. App. 135; Cremer v. Miller, 56 Minn. 52, 57 N. W. 318; West v. Stoeckel, 6 Ohio Dec. (Rep.), 1082; 10 Am. L. R. 309; Reichard v. Wallach, 91 N. Y. S. 347; Bishop v. Averill, 17 Wash. 209, 49 P. 237, 50 P. 1024; Power v. Kane, 5 Wis. 265; Mills v. Hays, 71 Pa. Super. Ct. 523.

There is authority to the effect that a broker's right to commissions is not defeated because the principal is unable to comply with the contract, as where independent of the broker he has previously sold the property. Lane v. Albright, 49 Ind. 275; Gregor v. McKee, 43 N. Y. S. 486, 18 Misc. 613; Levy v. Rothe, 39 N. Y. S. 1057, 17 Misc. 402; Woodall v. Foster, 91 Tenn. 195, 18 S. W. 241.

In later New York cases the doctrine has undergone a revision, on the ground that the owner may sell his premises at any time and to any customer who is willing to buy upon his terms, and that commissions may not be collected for customers produced after the premises have been sold. Hodge v. Appellees, 107 N. Y. S. 170, 122 App. Div. 437; Ettinghoff v. Harowitz, 100 N. Y. S. 1002, 115 App. Div. 571. Compare Secs. 454, 558.

A broker employed to secure a loan does not earn his commissions by merely procuring a lender who offers to make the loan, but who, after acceptance by the borrower, refuses to consummate the transaction. Ashfield v. Case, 87 N. Y. S. 649, 93 App. Div. 452; Crasto v. White, 5 N. Y. S. 718, 52 Hun, 473. See also Sec. 466.

To entitle a real estate broker to his commissions he must produce a person who actually purchases the property by complying with the terms agreed upon, unless his failure to do so is caused by the fault of the vendor. Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250; Briggs v. Rowe, 1 Abb. Dec. (If; Y.), 189, 4 Keyes 424; Burnet v. Edling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775; Parker v. Nat. Bdg., etc., Assn., 55 W. Va. 134, 46 S. E. 811; Myers v. Moore, 124 N. W. 187, 85 Neb. 715; Higen-botham v. McKenzie, 129 N. W. 263, 88 Neb. 323; Starbird v. J. H. McShane Timber Co., 142 N. W. 683, 94 Neb. 79; Hutch-ings v. McLaughlin, 149 S. W. 833, 149 Ky. 366; Hutchinson v. Plant, 105 N. E. 1017, 218 Mass. 148; Schweld v. Storandt, 143 N. Y. Sup. 161, 157 App. Div. 855; judg. aff., 112 N. E. 1075, 217 N. Y. 637; Heath v. Hoffhines, 152 S. W. 176, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Avola v. Oppenheimer, 153 N. Y. Sup. 421; Hix v. Tomlinson, 200 S. W. 897, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

A broker employed to effect a sale is not entitld to commissions until consummation. Dorrington v. Powell, 52 Neb. 440, 72 N. W. 587; Lyle v. Uni. Land & Inv. Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '95), 30 S. W. 723; Smith v. Sharp (Ala. '09), 50 S. 381.

A broker failing to show a completed contract between the seller and the buyer is not entitled to commissions. Reicherd v. Wallach, 91 N. Y. S. 347. A broker who contracted for commissions to be all over a certain net selling price, required a consummation of the sale to earn commissions. Munroe v. Taylor, 191 Mass. 483, 78 N. E. 106. See also Secs. 119, 193, 224, 272, 503.

Completion of the contract falls upon the owner after the broker has found a customer ready and willing to buy, where his contract is to find a purchaser. Swigert v. Hawley, 40 I11. App. 610, reversed on other grounds, 140 I11. 185; McCormick v. Obanion, 153 S. W. 267, 168 Mo. App. 606; Freeman v. Van Wagenan, 101 A. 55, - N. J. Sup. - .

When broker agrees to "secure" an exchange of land within thirty days, he has done his part by bringing the parties together so that his principal could have carried through the deal in such time. Turner v. Watkins, 172 P. 620, - Cal. App. - .

Where a broker employed to sell property on a commission found a prospective purchaser, but was unable to consummate a sale, and the owner subsequently sold directly to a third person, who secretly bought for the prospective purchaser, without knowledge of either broker or owner, the broker could not recover a commission from the owner on the theory that the third person was the undisclosed agent of the prospective purchaser, since this would result in harm to the innocent owner. Bitch v. Robertson, 106 A. 509, - Conn. Sup. - .

Where a broker furnished one claiming to be ready to purchase land at a certain price, and purchaser and owner orally agreed to consummate a sale, and were sent by the broker to a bank to have the contract prepared, and a dispute arose concerning the purchase price, and the deal was not consummated, the broker's right to compensation depended on whether the owner or the purchaser was at fault in terminating the deal. McLafferty v. Payne, 215 S. W. 680, - Ark Sup. - .