Where an agent, given authority to sell land, exercises his discretion as to price, examines the title, and fixes the price and terms, he may employ a real estate broker to find a purchaser, and a sale by him will be enforced, if he was required to obtain his commission in addition to the price agreed on, although the agent may have been requested by his principal not to employ a sub-agent. Renwick v. Bancroft, 56 Iowa, 527, 9 N. W. 367.

One for whom a broker assumes to act, without authority, may, by accepting the benefits of the broker's services, ratify the act, and so make himself liable for compensation, provided the principal does so with knowledge that the broker assumed to act for him as such. Merrill v. Latham, 8 Colo. 263, 45 P. 524; Dayton v. Am. Steel Barge Co., 73 N. Y. S. 316, 36 Misc. 223; McKinne v. Hope, 118 Ga. 462, 45 S. E. 413; Downing v. Buck, 135 Mich. 636, 98 N. W. 388; Hunt v. Jones, 105 Mo. App. 106, 79 S. W. 486; Charles v. Cook, 84 N. Y. S. 867, 88

App. Div. 81; Lyle v. Bennett, 70 N. Y. S. 283, 34 Misc. 476; Markham v. Washburn, 18 N. Y. S. 355; McCormack v. Mc-Caffery, 74 N. Y. S. 836, 36 Misc. 775; Twelfth Street Market v. Jackson, 102 Pa. St. 269; Graves v. Bains, 78 Tex. 92, 14 S. W. 256. Compare Sec. 587.

A departure by a real estate agent from the terms of his authority is cured by the principal's subsequent ratification and the compensation fixed by the original contract of employment controls. Gelatt v. Bidge, 117 Mo. 553, 23 S. W. 882. A broker employed to sell at a certain commission may employ a sub-agent for a share of the commission, and recover from his principal the commission agreed to be paid. Carter v. Webster, 79 I11. 435; Boyd v. Watson, 101 Iowa, 214, 70 N. W. 120; Henning v. Burch, 90 Minn. 43, 95 N. W. 578; Corning v. Calvert, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 56.

A real estate broker who undertakes to furnish a purchaser is bound to act in good faith, and when one is presented, the employer is bound to accept him or to pay the commission, provided the customer is able, ready and willing to make the purchase on the terms stipulated. Coleman v. Meade, 13 Bush. (Ky.) 358; Barber v. Heade, 30 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 127; Stewart v. Fowler, 53 Kan. 537, 36 P. 1002; Bach v. Emerich, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 548; Fraser v. Wychoff, 63 N. Y. 445; Dreyer v. Ranch, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 22, 3 Daly, 434; Martin v. Billings,

2 City Ct. R, (N. Y.) 85; Pratt v. Patterson, 112 Pa. St. 475,

3 A. 858.

In an action for a commission for selling property where it appeared that defendant gave plaintiff a written option to purchase land, it is competent to show a parol agreement by which the plaintiff was to find a purchaser and to receive as commissions all realized on the sale above a specified amount, and that such option contract was executed for the convenience of plaintiff, and the broker was held entitled to recover his commissions. Sterner v. Rice, 88 Wis. 16, 59 S. W. 450.

An agreement by real estate agents to divide their commissions with the purchaser of land, made without the knowledge of their principal, does not affect their right to recover the commissions which such principal agreed to pay. Scott v. Lloyd, 19 Colo. 401, 35 P. 733; Lemon v. Lloyd, 46 Mo. App. 452;

Chase v. Veal, 83 Tex. 333, 18 S. W. 597; Forst v. Farmer, 46 N. Y. S. 903, 21 Misc. 64.

A broker may be entitled to compensation other than a commission; e. g., for finding a purchaser, to the reasonable; Hawkins v. Chandler, 8 Honst. (Del.) 434, 32 A. 464; Beister v. Evans, 59 I11. App. 181; McMurtry v. Madison, 18 Neb. 291, 25 N. W. 85; Donald v. Lawson, 87 N. Y. S. 485; Alexander v. Wakefield (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 69 S. W. 77; Hodges v. Bailey, 143 S. W. 92, 102 Ark. 200; or agreed value of the services rendered. Delaplaine v. Turnley, 44 Wis. 31.

A broker may be entitled to a commission on a sale effected by the principal, without the broker's co-operation, if the contract so provides. Keniwell v. Shelly, 130 Cal. 555, 62 P. 1067; Haskins v. Fogg, 60 N. H. 402. See also Sec. 552.

If a broker merely brings together two parties who desire to exchange or sell their land, and his employment then ends, and the parties themselves settle the terms of the transaction, he is a mere middleman and may recover a commission from each party, if each has agreed to pay him. Clark v. Allen, 125 Cal. 276, 57 P. 985; Manders v. Croft, 3 Colo. App. 236, 32 P. 836; Cox v. Haren, 127 Ind. 325, 26 N. E. 822; Muller v. Kutzleb, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 253; Rupp v. Sampson. 16 Gray (Mass.), 398; Montross v. Eddy, 94 Mich. 100, 53 N. W. 916; Ranney v. Donavan, 78 Mich., 318, 44 N. W. 276; Childs v. Ptomey, 17 Mont. 502, 43 P. 714; Knauss v. Gottfried-Krueger Brewing Co., 142 N. Y. 70, 36 N. E. 867; Norton v. Genesee Nat. Sav., etc., Ass'n, 68 N. Y. S. 32, 57 App. Div. 520; Siegel v. Gould, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 177; Bonwell v. Auld, 29 N. Y. S. 15, 9 Misc. 65; Balheimer v. Richardt, 55 How. Pr. 414; Havi-land v. Price, 26 N. Y. S. 757, 6 Misc. 372; Collins v. Fowler, 8 Mo. App. 588. See also Sec. 475.

Where a contract is signed by the buyer and seller which contains stipulations by each in favor of the other of nearly equal value, the broker who brought them together is the proper custodian thereof, in the absence of other arrangements, and a delivery to the broker by each, after signing, amounts to a delivery to the other, and the final delivery by the seller to the broker completes the execution as a binding agreement, so as to entitle the broker to his commissions for finding a purchaser. Green v. Hoilingshead, 40 I11. App. 195.

Where the minds of the vendor and the purchaser have met on a contract to sell real estate, the broker who procured the execution of such contract is entitled to recover his promised commission, notwithstanding any vagueness in the terms of the agreement. Folinsbee v. Sawyer, 36 N. Y. S. 405, 15 Misc. 293, 51 N. E. 994, 157 N. Y. 196. If the right to a commission is dependent upon the payment of the price by the purchaser, the broker must show either payment, Burnett v. Edling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775, or a tender thereof, or he is not entitled to a commission. Fiske v. Soule, 87 Cal. 313, 25 P. 430.