If the broker acts as a mere middleman, and finds a purchaser at the price fixed, it is immaterial that each party to the transaction was ignorant of the broker's employment by the other party. Montross v. Eddy, 94 Mich. 100, 53 N. W. 916. 'A broker whose undertaking is merely to find a purchaser at a price fixed, or at a price satisfactory to the seller, is, in reality, only a middleman, whose duty is performed when the buyer and seller are brought together. Johnson v. Hay ward, 77 Neb. 35, 107 N. W. 384, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.), 112; Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636. Compare Harten v. Loeffler, 31 App. D. C. 362. See also Sec. 475.

A middleman is employed to bring two or more persons together, the parties, when they meet, to do their own negotiating and to make their own markets, and he sustains no confidential relations to either party. Arthur v. Ga. Cotton Co., 96 S. E. 232, - Ga. App. - .

In an action to recover a commission for services rendered as a middleman in bringing the parties together to make an exchange of property, evidence held to show that plaintiff was an active broker representing the party with whom defendant made the exchange, and was not a mere middleman who simply brought the parties together and permitted them to make their own trade, and was consequently not permitted to recover commissions from defendant. Pinch v. Morford, 142 Mich. 63, 105 N. W. 22. Under a petition alleging defendant's employment of plaintiff as a broker, in effecting a sale of property for defendant, plaintiff can not recover on proof of services as a mere middleman. Southack v. Lane, 65 N. Y. S. 629, 32 Misc. 141.

A broker who acts as a middleman to effect a purchase and sale of property, represents both the purchaser and the seller and is the common agent of both. Colvin v. Williams, 3 Harr. & J. (Md.) 38. 38; also to hold contract of sale. Sec. 557.

To a certain extent and for certain purposes, by the understanding and usages of business and the nature of his employment, a broker is authorized to act for both parties. But what he does in that relation he does as an indifferent person and not in the interest of either party. Every one who employs him is presumed to know and consent that to that extent and for such purposes he may so act. But beyond that he has no right to engage in the interests of the other party, without the actual knowledge and consent of his principal. Even custom or usage will not be allowed to extend the right to act for and receive commissions from both parties to matters where the interests of the parties are or may be diverse. Walker v. Osgood, 98 Mass. 348. Compare Sees. 475, 799b. See also Sec. 764.