A broker is not entitled to compensation for merely introducing the vendee, unless his character as such agent was disclosed to the principal at the time of contract. Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63; Bassford v. West, 124 Mo. App. 248, 101 S. W. 610. See also Secs. 450, 532. Where a real estate broker was not acquainted with the purchaser, and did not introduce him to the seller, the effectiveness of the broker's instrumentality in bringing about the sale must be affirmatively proved to entitle him to commissions. Halterman v. Leining, 90 N. Y. S. 1093, 45 Misc. 397.

While an agent employed to sell land must find a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on the terms proposed before he has earned his commissions, that rule does not apply to one who is only hired to render the preliminary service of introducing the seller to persons who shall afterwards buy. Mayer v. McCann, 136 I11. App. 501, affirmed 232 I11. 507, 83 N. E. 1042; Walker v. Sterry, 130 N. Y. Sup. 801, 146 App. Div. 332.

To entitle a broker to recover commissions on a sale of land direct by the owner to a purchaser originally introduced to the owner by the broker, the latter must show not only that he intro-duced the buyer, but affirmatively that the buyer was induced to apply direct to the owner by the means employed by the broker. English v. Wm. George Realty Co. (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 117 S. W. 996. See Sec. 450.

That the party presented by plaintiff, a broker, entered into a lease with defendant, will not support a recovery of a commission unless plaintiff was employed to procure a tenant. Floore v. J. T. Burgher & Co., 142 S. W. 939, judg. aff. 174 S. W. 819, - Tex. Sup. - .

A broker's mere introduction of one who thereafter purchases from the owner does not entitle him to a commission where the purchaser was fully advised as to the property and already determined to purchase it. Pitts v. Pitts, 164 P. 105, - Okl. Sup. - .

Broker having the same surname as the owner, and who, by mistake of intending purchaser, was brought in contact with purchaser, and who did nothing but direct the purchaser to the true owner, who thereafter negotiated a sale of the property, was not entitled to a commission. Id.

If a realty broker introduces another broker to an owner as a purchaser, and no sale was made to the other broker, the introducing broker is not entitled to a commission on a sale subsequently made by the other broker under contract entered into, in good faith, by the owner, with him as a broker, the owner not having bound himself to the first broker not to sell the land himself nor to refrain from selling through another broker. Brannen v. Poole, 218 S. W. 186, - Ark. Sup. - .