108 N. W. 291; Peet v. Sherwood, 47 Minn. 347, 50 N. W. 241, 929; Rothschild v. Burritt, 47 Minn. 28, 49 N. W. 393; Annabil v. Traverse Law Co. (Minn. Sup. '09), 121 N. W. 233; Huba-check v. Hazard, 83 Minn. 437, 86 N. W. 426; Fairchild v. Cunningham, 84 Minn. 521, 88 N. W. 15; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226, 45 N. W. 428; Enochs v. Paxton, 87 Miss. 660, 40 S. 14; Johnson v. Sutton (Miss. Sup. '09), 49 S. 970; Huggins v. Hearne, 74 Mo. App. 86; McCray v. Pfost, 118 Mo. App. 672,

94 S. W. 998; Morgan v. Keller, 194 Mo. 663, 92 S. W. 75; Veatch v. Norman, 95 Mo. App. 500, 69 S. W. 472; Bailee v. McMurray, 113 Mo. App. 253, 88 S. W. 157; Broum v. Smith, 113 Mo. App. 59, 87 S. W. 556; Butts v. Ruby, 85 Mo. App. 405; Finley v. Dyer, 79 Mo. App. 604; Hayden v. Grillo, 26 Mo. App. 289; Chipley v. Leuthe, 60 Mo, App. 15; Gelott v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 533, 23 S. W. 882; Goodson v. Embleton, 106 Mo. App. 77, 80 S. W. 22; Harmon v. Enright, 107 Mo. App. 560, 81 S. W. 1180; Yoder v. White, 75 Mo. App. 155; Warren v. Cram, 71 Mo. App. 638; Siemson v. Homan, 35 Neb. 892, 53 N. W. 1012; Potvin v. Curran, 13 Neb. 302, 14 N. W. 400; Stewart v. Smith, 50 Neb. 631, 70 N. W. 235; Tracey v. Deam, 77 Neb. 382, 109 N. W. 505; Parker v. Estabrook, 68 N. H. 349, 44 A. 484; Courtier v. Lydecker, 71 N. J. L. 511, 58 A. 1093; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378; Bloodgood v. Short, 98 N. Y. S. 775, 50 Misc. 286; Moore v. Maguire, 98 N. Y. S. 752; Shapiro v. Nadler, 99 N. Y. S. 879, 51 Misc. 13; O'Toole v. Tucker, 40 N. Y. S. 695, 17 Misc. 554, 75 St. 101; Martin v. Wermann,

95 N. Y. S. 284, 107 App. Div. 482; Miller v. Barth, 71 N. Y. S. 989, 35 Misc. 372, 74 N. Y. S. 869, 36 Misc. 810; Allen v. James, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 13; Seidman v. Banner, 51 Misc. (N. Y.) 10, 99 N. Y. S. 862; Behrman v. Marcus, 102 N. Y. S. 467; Lovell v. Clench, 101 N. Y. S. 174, 115 App. Div. 635; McGill v. Gar-goula, 103 N. Y. S. 113; Rosenstcin v. Bogel, 108 N. Y. S. 957, 124 App. Div. 527; Willner v. Seale, I11 N. Y. S. 699, 127 App. Div. 180; Van Orden v. Morris, 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 579, 42 N. Y. S. 473; Moses v. Helmke, 41 N. Y. S. 557, 18 Misc. 357; Duclos v. Cunningham, 102 N. Y. S. 678, 6 N. E. 790; Miller v. Irish, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 256; Smith v. Smith, 1 Sweeney (N. Y.), 552; Krahner v. Heilman, 16 Daly (N. Y.), 132, 9 N. Y. S. 633; Burling v. Gunthsr, 12 Daly (N. Y.), 6; Folinsbee v.

Sawyer, 28 1ST. Y. S. 698, 8 Misc. 370; Barnard v. Monnott, 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 108, 3 Keyes, 203, 33 How. Pr. 440; Boyd v. Imp. Prop. Holding Co., 120 N. Y. S. 850; Verder v. Seaton, 83 N. Y. S. 159, 85 App. Div. 196; Dennis v. Charlick, 6 Hun (N. Y.), 21; Heinrich v. Kern, 4 Daly (N. Y.), 74; Levy v. Ruff, 22 N. Y. S. 744, 3 Misc. 147; Steinhouse v. Klueppel, 81 N. Y. S. 116, 80 App. Div. 445; Curtis v. Mott, 35 N. Y. S. 983, 90 Hun, 439; Folsom v. Lewis, 36 N. Y. S. 270, 14 Misc. 605; Mullenhoff v. Gensler, 15 N. Y. S. 673; Raleigh, R. E. Trust Co., v. Adams, 145 N. C. 161, 58 S. E. 1008; Ward v. McQueen, 13 N. D. 153, 100 N. W. 253; Heintz v. Boehmer, 4 Ohio N. P. 226, 6 Ohio S. & C. P..Dec. 362; Birch v. McNaught (Okla. Sup. '09), 101 P. 1049; Yoder v. Randal, 16 Okla. 308, 83 P. 537, 3 L. R. A. n.s. 576; Ball v. Dolan, 18 S. D. 558, 101 N. W. 719; Maites v. Engel, 15 S. D. 330, 89 N. W. 651; Howie v. Batrud, 14 S. D. 648, 86 N. W. 747; Ornyski v. Menger, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 39 S. W. 388; Smye v. Groesbech (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 73 S. W. 972; Brackenridge v. Claridge (Tex. Civ. App. '97), 42 S. W. 1005, reversed 91 Tex. 127, 144 S. W. 819; 43 L. R. A. 593; Bamberger v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 118 S. W. 770; Baldwin v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 119 S. W. I11; Burnett v. Edling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775; O'Brien v. Gilliland, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 40, 23 S. W. 244; Reynolds-McGuinness Co. v. Green, 78 Vt. 28, 61 A. 556; Cooper v. Upton (W. Va. Sup. '09), 64 S. E. 523; Neely v. Lewis, 38 Wash. 20, 80 P. 175; Neely v. Schultz, 38 Wash. 699, 80 P. 176; Muir v. Moeller, 46 Wash. 601, 90 P. 1042; Barnes v. German Sav., etc., Soc, 21 Wash. 448, 58 P. 569; English v. Wm. George Realty Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 117 S. W. 996; Little v. Fleischman (Utah Sup. '09), 101 P. 984; Frinck v. Gilbert (Wash. Sup. '09), 101 P. 770; Burden v. Briquilet, 125 Wis. 341, 104 N. W. 83; Arnold v. Nat. Bk. Waupaca, 126 Wis. 362, 105 N. W. 828, 3 L. R. A. n.s. 580; Oliver v. Katz, 131 Wis. 409, I11 N. W. 509; McArthur v. Slosson, 53 Wis. 41, 9 N. W. 784; Frost v. Houx, 15 Wyo. 353, 89 P. 568; McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 Howard (U. S.), 221; Brydes v. Clement, 14 Manitoba, 588.

If the broker employed to find a purchaser brings to the owner a person who is able, ready and willing to buy on the owner's terms, he is entitled to compensation, although he does not make or negotiate a binding contract of purchase. Buckingham v. Harris, 10 Colo. 455, 15 P. 817; Monroe v. Snow, 131 I11. 126, 23 N. E. 401; Ward v. Lawrence, 79 I11. 295; Goodmanson v. Rosenstein, 114 I11. App. 243; Fox v. Starr, 106 I11. 273; Lockwood v. Rose, 125 Ind. 588, 25 N. E. 710; Burling v. Gunther, 12 Daly (N. Y.), 6; Folinsbee v. Sawyer, 28 N. Y. S. 698, 8 Misc. 370; Heintz v. Boehmer, 4 Ohio N. P. 226, 6 Ohio C. & C. Pl. Dec. 362; Mattes v. Engel, 15 S. D. 330, 89 N. W. 651; Barnes v. German, etc., Sav. Soc, 21 Wash. 448, 58 P. 569; Brydes v. Clement, 14 Manitoba, 588; Marriott v. Brennan, 14 Ont. L. R. 508, 10 Ont. W. R. 159; Willard v. Wright (Mass. Sup. '09), 89 N. E. 559; Dean v. Williams (Wash. Sup. '10), 106 P. 130; Beongher v. Clark (Kan. Sup. '09), 106 P. 39; Simmons v. Oneth (Mo. App. '10), 124 S. W. 534; Wat-kins v. Thomas (Mo. App. '10). 124 S. W. 1063; Slayback v. Wetzel (Me. App. '09), 123 S. W. 982.

A broker employed to sell lands, as distinguished from a broker employed merely to find a purchaser, to be entitled to compensation, must effect a sale or procure from his customer a binding contract therefor. Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa, 202, 98 N. W. 724.

An offer to buy 290,000 feet of land, to be taken from a parcel containing 500,000 feet, said 290,000 feet to be divided as to front and back lands from the whole parcel as nearly equal as possible, where accepted by the owner of the land, entitles the broker employed to find a purchaser therefor to his commission, and the Owner will not be heard to say it is too indefinite. Monk v. Parker, 180 Mass. 246, 63 N. E. 793.