Under a contract providing for the payment of commissions "at the date of the payment of the purchase price," or "in installments acording to payments by said purchaser," the broker was entitled to his commissions on each partial payment, payment of commissions not being dependent on the payment of the entire purchase price, although the principal, a part owner, received no part of the payments. Frank v. Bonnevie, 20 Colo. App. 164, 77 P. 363.

A proviso in a broker's contract that the commission shall be payable out of the first cash payment, is not a condition precedent to the broker's right to recover commissions, and does not mean that unless there is a cash payment, there is to be no commission paid. Finch v. Guardian Trust Co., 92 Mo. App. 263.

The mere fact that the interest and insurance clauses in the contract of sale had not been definitely arranged before the day on which the contract was presented for signature, no objection being raised by the purchaser, will not deprive the broker of his commissions. Beebe v. Ranger, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 452. And the broker does not lose his right to a commission merely because the principal and the customer can not, in an agreement for an exchange, be brought to terms on a particular point, if they come to a general agreement. Wychoff v. Bliss, 12 Daly (N. Y.), 324. Compare Sec. 33.

The right of a broker who has obtained a purchaser is not affected by the fact that the vendor did not understand the contract as written, where the broker himself was not guilty of fraud or deception. Bach v. Emerich, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 548; McKnight v. Thayer, 21 N. Y. S. 440.

The fact that the contract bound the purchaser only to forfeit a cash payment of $500 is immaterial, where it appears that a tender of the whole price was made by the purchaser to the vendor, who refused to convey the property, and the broker was entitled to recover commissions. Fiske v. Soule, 87 Cal. 313, 25 P. 430.

There are cases holding, that if the negotiations between the principal and the customer continue uninterruptedly after the expiration of the time allowed the broker, and a sale is made of which the broker is the procuring cause, he is entitled to a commission, although the broker did not bring the parties to terms within the time limited in the contract of employment. Griswold v. Pierce, 86 I11. App. 406; Jaeger v. Glover, 89 Minn. 490, 95 N. W. 311; Goffe v. Gibson, 18 Mo. App. 1; Michaelis v. Gaeren, 41 N. Y. S. 563, 9 App. Div. 495, 75 N. T. St. 952; Vanderveer v. Suydam, 31 N. Y. S. 392, 83 Hun, 116; Shipman v. Wilkeson, 112 N. Y. S. 895; Moore v. Holman R. E. Co., 196 S. W. 479, - Ark. Sup. - .

To be entitled to a commission where no sale is actually made, a broker employed to find a purchaser must either produce to the owner a customer who is able, ready and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by the owner, or else take from the customer a binding contract of purchase. Bingham v. Davidson, 141 Ala. 551, 37 S. 738; Sharpley v. Moody, 44 S. 650, 152 Ala. 549; Sayre v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 151, 5 S. 157; Crook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395, 22 S. 540; Boyson v. Frink, 80 Ark. 254, 96 S. W. 1056; Gunn v. State Bank, 99 Cal. 349, 33 P. 1105; Hill v. McCoy, 1 Cal. App. 159, 81 P. 1015; Carlin v. Lifuer, 2 Cal. App. 590, 84 P. 292; Vandercook v. Wilmans (Cal. App. '06), 87 P. 1116; Shanks v. Michael, 4 Cal. App. 553, 88 P. 596; Coward v. Clinton, 122 Cal. 451, 55 P. 147; Quitzon v. Perrin, 120 Cal. 255, 52 P. 632; Zeimer v. Antisell, 75 Cal. 509, 17 P. 642; Masten v. Griffing, 33 Cal. I11; Wagner v. Morris, 39 Colo. 106, 88 P. 973; Silberberg v. Chipman, 42 Colo. 20, 93 P. 1130; King Powder Co. v. Dillon, 42 Colo. 316, 96 P. 439; Ross v. Smiley, 18 Colo. App. 204, 70 P. 766; Buckingham v. Harris, 10 Colo. 455, 15 P. 817; Carter v. Owens (Fla. Sup. '09), 50 S. 641; Furlow v. Benoit (La. Sup. '09), 50 S. 785; Anderson v. Olsen (Minn. Sup. '10), 124 N. W. 3; Dotson v. Milliken, 27

App. Cas. (D. C.) 500, 209 U. S. 237; Jones v. Holladay, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 279; Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 S. 1011; Indian Trust Co. v. Sandlin, 125 Ga. 222, 54 S. E. 65; Phinzy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479, 59 S. E. 259 Wood v. Broderson, 12 Idaho, 190, 85 P. 490; Mercy v. Whallon, 115 I11. App. 435; Fox v. Ryan, 240 I11. 391, 88 N. E. 974; Scott v. Steivart, 115 I11. App. 535; Lemon v. Carter, 116 I11. App. 421; Whalen v. Gore, 116 I11. App. 504; Newman v. Lumley, 125 I11. App. 382; Oldham v. Howser, 125 I11. App. 543; Walter v. Chambers, 128 I11. App. 624; Packer v. Sheppard, 127 I11. App. 598; Nolan v. East, 132 I11. App. 634; Long v. Hand, 57 I11. App. 134; Faber v. Vaugh-an, 108 I11. App. 553; Kilpatrick v. McLaughlin, 108 I11. App. 463; Jeffries v. Loving, 106 I11. App. 380; Phillips v. Dow-hower, 103 I11. App. 50; Monroe v. Snow, 131 I11. 126, 23 N. E. 401; Ward v. Lawrence, 70 I11. 295; Fox v. Storr, 106 I11. App. 273; Hanrahan v. Ulrich, 107 I11. App. 626; Schmidt v. Keeler, 63 I11. App. 487; Ispherding v. Wolf, 36 Ind. App. 250, 75 N. E. 598; Prov. Trust Co. v. Darraugh, 168 Ind. 29, 78 N. E. 1030; Barnett v. Gluting, 3 Ind. App. 415, 29 N. E. 154, 927; Lockwood v. Rose, 125 Ind. 588, 25 N. E. 710; McFarland v. Lillard, 2 Ind. App. 160, 28 N. E. 229; Flynn v. Jordal, 124 Iowa, 457, 100 N. W. 326; Grieb v. Koefler, 127 Iowa, 314, 106 N. W. 113; Sherburne Land Co. v. Sexton, 130 Iowa, 85, 106 N. W. 378; McDermott v. Mahoney (Iowa Sup. ), 106 N. W. 925, 115 N. W. 32; McGuire v. Farber, 125 Iowa, 533, 101 N. W. 279; Tracey v. Forbes, 132 Iowa, 250, 109 N. W. 772; Clements v. Stapleton, 136 Iowa, 137, 113 N. W. 546; Rounds v. Alee, 116 Iowa, 345, 89 N. W. 1098; Cassady v. Sealy, 69 Iowa, 509, 29 N. W. 432; Bird v. Phillips, 115 Iowa, 703, 87 N. W. 414; Long v. Thompson, 73 Kan. 76, 84 P. 552; Morris v. Francis, 75 Kan. 580, 89 P. 901; Sandefur v. Bines, 69 Kan. 168, 76 P. 444; Coleman v. Meade CKy.), 13 Bush. 358; Guthrie v. Bright, 26 Ky. L. R. 1021,. 82 S.W. 985; Jacob v. Buchanan, 11 Ky. L. R. (abst.) 861; Curry v. Fetter, 15 Ky. L. R, (abst.) 494; Smith v. Lawrence, 98 Me. 92, 56 A. 455; Carnes v. Howard, 180 Mass. 569, 63 N. E. 122; Rice v. Mayo, 107 Mass. 550; Holden v. Starks, 159 Mass. 503, 34 N. E. 1069; Whitaker v. Engle, I11 Mich. 205; 69 N. W. 493; Hubbard v. Leiter, 145 Mich. 387, 108 N. W. 735; McDonald v. Smith, 99 Minn. 42,