A contract for the sale of lands was executed by the owner and left with his agent for the sale of such land for delivery to the purchaser, the agent altered the instrument by substituting the name of another person, and changed both the consideration and the rate of interest, and delivered it to such other person. Held, that the contract so delivered was not the contract of the owner. Ballou v. Bergenson, 9 N. D. 285, 83 N. W. 10. See also Sec. 293.

The right of plaintiff, a real estate agent, to recover on his contract for the sale of the defendant's interest in lands for a certain sum is not affected by a change, without defendant's knowledge, in the agreement relative to the purchase of the other interests. Good v. Smith, 44 Ore. 578, 76 P. 354. Where a letter to a real estate broker authorized the sale of certain property for $30,000, subject to change at any time, but no change was made or suggested until after a sale was negotiated, a subsequent change and a refusal of the owner to complete the sale at the price first named was ineffective to bar the broker's right to commissions. Warren Com. & Inv. Co. v. Hull B. E. Co., 120 Mo. App. 432, 96 S. W. 1038; Millan v. Porter, 31 Mo. App. 563; Howard v. Street, 93 A. 923, 125 Md. 289; Lamar v. King, 53 S. 279, 168 Ala. 285; Meyer v. Holland, 171 S. W. 893, 116 Ark. 271; Brown v. Hallgreen, 129 N. E. 429, - Mass. Sup. - . See also Sec. 454. Simmins v. Oneth (Mo. App. '10), 124 S. W. 534.

Where, after a broker entered into a written contract with a prospective purchaser, the owner was substituted as a party in the place of the broker, the legal liability imposed was the same as if the contract had been originally made by the owner with such purchaser through the broker's procurance. Minder & Jorgenson Land Co. v. Brustuen, 140 N. W. 251, 31 S. D. 211.

Where, after vendor and purchaser had entered into a binding contract, the vendor agreed, at the broker's solicitation, to an alteration of the contract which gave the purchaser a mere option, which was never exercised, the broker was not entitled to a commission. Waddle v. Smith, 108 N. E. 537, 58 Ind. App. 587.

A contract employing a broker was not rendered invalid by his insertion of a provision for a longer term of employment than agreed upon, where the land-owner failed to read the written contract, but no misrepresentation was made as to the contents of the instrument, and the broker made no statements inducing the owner to sign without reading the agreement. Mayfield Land Co. v. Yin, 225 S. W. 366, - Ky. Ct. App. - .