(1) In an action for broker's commission, facts held insufficient to establish a defense of double-dealing on plaintiff's part which would bar his right to commissions. Blakely v. Waller & Holz Co., 167 S. W. 1170, 180 Mo. App. 176.

(2) In an action for a broker's commission for procuring a purchaser to negotiate with defendants, without disclosing that he was plaintiff's customer, held insufficient. Handley v. Shaffer, 59 S. 286, 177 Ala. 636.

(3) In realty broker's action for commissions for having procured sale, defendant's answer, facts not showing affirmatively plaintiff procured the sale as made, but negativing it was so procured, alleging specifically facts in connection with charge of double agency which constituted defense; held, not subject to exception on ground it did not negative plaintiff was procuring cause of sale. Buck v. Woodson, 209 S. W. 344, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(4) In land-broker's action on commission notes, in which owners seek to avoid liability and counterclaim for damages upon ground of broker's misrepresentation as to the value of property received in exchange; held, that answer failed to plead that property received in exchange was not worth as much as property received in return therefor. Stouffer v. Eymann, 183 P. 210, - Cal. App. - .

(5) An answer, in an action by a broker to recover compensation, admitted that defendant listed real estate with the plaintiff and signed a contract, and that defendant had great confidence in plaintiff, but that defendant, after he had signed the contract, learned that plaintiff had also represented other parties in the transaction and prepared the contract of sale, was not sufficient as a charge of fraud. Eickmeier v. Geddes, 126 N. E. 859, - Ind. App. - .

(6) In an action on a promissory note, an answer which alleged that the note was given to pay plaintiff a commission for a sale of land to defendant, and that after defendant acquired the land he learned that plaintiff was not authorized by the vendor to represent her in making the sale, is insufficient to show want of consideration, since the sale to defendant by the vendor ratified plaintiff's acts if they were unauthorized. Trotti v. Neams, 105 S. E. 443, - S. C. Sup. - .