A broker was orally employed to procure a purchaser of a farm within five days, at a price which should net the owner $11,000 and the broker $875; thereafter the broker stated in writing that any arrangement made by his agent and the owner would be satisfactory; that he would have persons look at the farm before the expiration of the five days, and that any arrangement should be made in writing; the owner wrote that he would give the broker "a price of $11,000 on" the farm for ten days, "reserving the privilege to sell to others;" the broker sent his agent to the owner, with a writing, for the purpose of making sure of a commission if the sale was made. Held, that the written contract agreed to by the broker, and the owner's written statement, which superseded the oral contract, conferred on the broker the right to sell the farm at a sum which would give the owner $11,000, and on the owner the right to sell it to any purchaser not procured by the broker, and authorized a sale to a purchaser procured by the broker for as low a price as $11,000, if the broker's agent in charge of the transaction was willing to do it, unless the owner knew that the agent was acting contrary to his instructions. Haven v. Tartar, 124 Mo. App. 691, 102 S. W. 21; Babcock v. Merritt, 1 Colo. App. 84, 27 P. 882; Bees v. Spruance, 45 I11. 308; Burnett v. Betts, 236 I11. 499, 86 N. E. 258; Sanger v. Wilson, 52 I11. App. 117; Antisdell v. Canfield, 119 Mich. 229, 77 N. W. 944; Williams v. McGraw. 52 Mich. 480, 18 N. W. 227; Holcomb v. Stafford, 102 Minn. 233, 113 N. W. 449; Beatty v. Russell, 41 Neb. 321, 59 N. W. 919; Holbrook v. Inv. Co., 30 Ore. 259, 47 P. 920; Ames v. Lamont, 107 Wis. 531, 83 N. W. 780; Wol-verton v. Tuttle, 51 Ore. 501, 94 P. 961; White v. Gaida, 168 S. W. 473, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Gilmore v. Bolio, 131 N. W. 105, 165 Mich. 633, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1050; Ciss v. Gales, 153 S. W. 1088, 168 Mo. App. 282. See also Secs. 456, 560.

In some jurisdictions, in such case the broker is, nevertheless, entitled to recover of the owner a reasonable compensation for his services. Alexander v. Breedon, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 125; Aikin v. Allan, 14 Manitoba, 549; Ford v. Brown, 120 Cal. 551,

52 P. 817. But can not recover where the sale is not completed. Seattle Land Co. v. Day, 2 Wash. 451, 27 P. 74.

An agreement for the sale of real estate for a net amount to the owners, the person making the sale to have as compensation what he could get above that amount, entitled him to no compensation for making a sale until the owners received the net amount stipulated, unless a failure to do so was due to their own fault. Burnett v. Botts, 236 I11. 499, 86 N. E. 258.

Where an owner listed his land with a broker at $80 per acre net to the owner, and the broker found a purchaser at $82.50 per acre, and presented a contract to the owner calling for a price of $80 per acre, and the owner signing it stated that he was to pay no commission, the owner, on cancelling the contract, with the consent of the purchaser, was not liable for commissions. Mc-Carty v. Bristow, 145 S. W. 1029, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where owners of a ranch listed it with an agent for sale at $35 net price per acre, the agent to procure his commission out of some advanced price, and later told agent that if he could get an offer of $35, commission might be adjusted, and agent did not obtain such offer, and some time later a person who had promised agent to consider it, bought it directly from the owners at that price, the owners were not liable under special contract to agent for commission, where record showed no bad faith or unfair dealing on their part toward agent. Karr v. Moffett, 185 P. 890, re. den. 187 P. 683, - Kan. Sup. - .