The plaintiff, a real estate broker, having in his hands certain property of the defendant for sale or exchange, arranged for an exchange with C, and a contract was executed by C. and the defendant, by which each was to take immediate possession of the other's property, and on or before a day fixed was to convey his property to the other by warranty deed; and if either should fail to perform, he was to pay the other $500 as liquidated damages; C. failed to perform, without fault on the part of the defendant. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to his commissions; the defendant having agreed to accept $500 in lieu of performance, would not be allowed to deny as against the plaintiff that that payment was equivalent to performance. Leete v. Norton, 43 Conn. 219; criticized, Rieger v. Bigger, 29 Mo. App. 421; Parker v. Estdbrook, 68 N. H. 349, 44 A. 484. Contra, Kimberly v. Henderson, 29 Md. 512; Moloney v. Aschafenburg, 78 S. 761, - La. Sup. -; Fuller v. Preston, 191 P. 493, - Kan. Sup. - .

H., a real estate broker, having heard that K. desired to sell certain property, went to his office and informed him that in case he succeeded in negotiating a sale he should expect the usual commissions; afterward H. brought K. and J. together and certain papers were executed whereby they contracted for a sale of the property, with a stipulation that if either party should fail to comply with the contract, a forfeiture of $1,000 should be paid by the party in default; J. failed to comply with the contract and gave his note for the forfeit money. Held, that H. was not entitled to a commission. Kimberly v. Henderson, 29 Md. 512. Contra, Leete v. Horton, 43 Conn. 219; Parker v. Estabrook, 68 N. H. 349, 44 A. 484.

A broker is not injured by the cancellation, without his consent, of a contract of purchase, and derived from it no cause of action against the vendor, where the broker had agreed with the vendor that he (the broker) should not be entitled to a commission until the purchaser fully completed the transaction; the agreed payment was made and a contract of sale executed, but the purchaser defaulted in making the first deferred payment, as a result of which the vendor became entitled, under the contract of purchase, to declare a forfeiture. Seymour v. St. Luke's Hospital, 50 N. Y. S. 989, 28 A. D. 119.

Where a purchaser agrees absolutely to buy the property, the broker can not be deprived of the commission because the price is payable in installments where the vendor has the right to declare a forfeiture on default of payment of any installment, exercises the same and retains the payments made. Stewart v. Fowler, 53 Kan. 537, 36 P. 1002; Willes v. Smith, 77 Wis. 81, 45 N. W. 666; Betz v. Williams, etc., Land Co., 46 Kan. 45, 26 P. 456.

A broker may, by agreement, forfeit his right to a commission in case a purchaser defaults in carrying out his contract. Seymour v. St. Luke's Hospital, 50 N. Y. S. 989, 28 App. Div. 119; Forsyth v. Phelps, 128 P. 778, 2 Cal. App. 133; Where a customer obtained by a broker refuses to carry out the contract of sale entered into with the vendor, the broker does not forfeit his right to a commission by the fact that, on such refusal, he procures another customer and states to his principal that he expects no commission on the previous sale. Beach v. Emerich, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 548.

Where a contract for the purchase of land accorded to the purchaser the right to "back out," on paying a forfeiture, the vendor can not recover damages from the agents on account of their having, by false representations, induced the purchasers to forfeit the contract. Hetzler v. Morrell, 82 Iowa, 562, 48 N. W. 938.

If an agent or broker employed to transact a particular business is guilty of bad faith to his principal, he thereby forfeits his right to commissions. Bunn v. Kerch, 214 I11. 259, 73 N. E. 419. The right of one employing a broker to procure a purchaser for his land to recover from the broker the forfeit money paid by the intending purchaser failing to complete the purchase is not affected by a custom that forfeit money belongs to the broker, the owner not contracting with reference thereto. M. L. Chambers & Co. v. Herring (Tex. Civ. App. '05), 88 S. W. 371.

An agent employed by A. and B. to purchase land, made a purchase and took a conveyance to himself, and afterwards obtained from A. his interest in the land. Held, that B. did not, by neglecting to pay his share of the purchase money at the stipulated time, forfeit his right to a conveyance from the agent. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 4 Desau. (S. C.) 77. Compare First Bank v. Bissell, 2 McCrary (U. S.), 73. Compare Sec. 368.

That contract of sale is cancelled by consent of parties; held, not to affect the right of broker employed by vendor to compensation. Reasoner v. Yates, 134 N. W. 651, 90 Neb. 757.

Under Code Pub. Civ. Laws, Art. 2, Sec. 17, a broker who negotiated a contract of sale, which was signed by both vendor and purchaser, is entitled to his commission, though the vendor dismisses his suit to compel specific performance by the purchaser on payment of a consideration by the purchaser. North Ave, Cassino Co. of Balti. City v. Ferguson, 100 A. 628, 130 Md. 376.

Under contract to sell vendor's land, "one-half down, and the balance in five equal annual payments," a broker is not entitled to commission upon vendor's refusal to sign and seal contract under which purchaser could refuse to complete the purchase by forfeiture of $100 for non-compliance, such being an option contract and incapable of specific performance. Cali. Land & Security Co. v. Ritchie, 180 P. 625, - Cal. App. - .

Where a real estate broker procured a purchaser, secured by him to enter into a contract with the principal for the sale of certain land, that the contract provided for a forfeiture, as liquidated damages, in case of non-performance on the purchaser's part, deprived the broker of his right to commission upon the purchaser's refusal to consummate the decree, without the fault of either the broker or his principal, although the principal was at liberty to waive his right to specific performance of the contract and accept the forfeiture as compensation for its breach. La Prelle v. Brown, 220 S. W. 151, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where landowner obligated himself to pay an ordinary commission to a real estate broker to procure a purchaser of his premises, and the broker procured a purchaser, the mere fact that the owner thereafter, believing that the price of the property was liable to advance, secured a release from his contract of sale by giving the purchaser a substantial amount of money, was no ground for a claim on the part of such owner that the broker's demand for his agreed compensation was inequitable and extortionate. Gardner v. Buechler, I11 A. 589, - Conn. Sup. - .

Under a contract obligating defendants to procure within three days a three-year lease, for a specified rental, with the option of two additional years, or to return to plaintiffs the sum of $250 paid by them, plaintiffs could recover the $250, where the leasehold instrument presented to plaintiffs was for three years only, with no provision for the additional two years, notwithstanding evidence that the lessors were willing to give the two years' extension, but not to embody such provision in the written lease. Ver-non v. Antill, 194 P. 806, - Wash. Sup. - .