(22) Evidence of an express offer of a commission to a third person for bringing about a sale to another, was competent to show a motive for the principal's desire to abandon the agreement with customers procured by the broker. Hutchinson v. Plant, 105 N. E. 1017, 218 Mass. 148.

(23) Evidence of the amount obtained by the principal after abandoning the agreement with the customers procured by the broker, was admissible in the discretion of the judge. Id.

(23) Evidence of parol condition in owner's agreement to accept land in lieu of cash; held admissible, as tending to show lack of fidelity on the part of the broker. Worthen v. Stewart, 172 S. W. 855, 116 Ark. 294.

(24) In a case for broker's commissions for securing purchasers of certain real estate for defendant at a partition sale, evidence that at the sale one of the plaintiffs was instrumental in stopping the bids of an adverse bidder, on the ground that he was unwilling to comply with the terms of the sale, and thereby render the service in accordance with his duty, as representative of the defendants, was admissible. Davis v. Gross, 134 S. W. 83, 153 Mo. App. 607.

(24) Where defendants employed plaintiffs to secure certain property about to be sold at a partition sale, evidence that plaintiffs agreed not to have any other bidders at the sale than defendants was admissible. Id.

(25) Where it appeared that the owner orally employed the brokers, and then contracted a sale to the purchaser procured by them, an agreement between the purchaser and the brokers, by which the purchaser employed the brokers to procure a buyer from him at an advanced price; held, admissible on the question whether the brokers in good faith performed their contract. Dickinson v. Tyson, 103 N. E. 703, 209 N. Y. 395, rev. judg., 132 N. Y. Sup. 1126, 148 App. Div. 894.

(26) In action for commission for selling a farm of defendant, evidence that the broker had agreed to assist the purchaser in procuring the farm, held competent, on the issue of his agency for the purchaser. Hoffman v. Steile, 139 N. W. 733, 152 Wis. 84.

(27) Where a real estate agent was the secret but accredited representative of defendants in an attempt to sell certain land to plaintiff, evidence of what he did and said while in the performance of his duty as agent was admissible against defendants. Schiffer v. Anderson, 146 F. 457, 76 C. C. A. 667.

(28) In an action by assignee of real estate broker to recover as commission payment received from purchaser, and paid by broker to owner as consideration for a contract, giving purchaser the right to consummate the sale, earnest money receipt given by owner to broker is material as tending to show that payment was made as consideration for the contract. Halloran v. German American Mer. Bk., 165 P. 80, - Wash. Sup. - .

(29) In broker's action for commission on sale of farm, where plaintiff testified that one of the terms of contract was that buyer must first dispose of his farm, plaintiff was properly permitted to show that buyer had complied with conditions. McFarland v. Walton, 164 N. W. 737, - Iowa Sup. - .

(30) In an action by a broker for compensation, in which defendant claimed fault of plaintiff in not procuring a person able and willing to make an agreed exchange, in that such party did not show a good and merchantable title to his land, and that the cause of failure of negotiations was in the defect in defendant's title, because of pending litigation; held, admissible to show that the other party who was to make the exchange had notice of such defect in the title. Empire Securities Co. v. Noble, 81 S. 5, - Ala. Sup. - .

(31) Where defendant had introduced proof as to the date of proceedings in another suit affecting title to the land and of the parties to it, etc., the record of such case was admissible to contradict or sustain that evidence. Id.

(32) The record in another suit against defendant held admissible, since it may have involved title to land exchanged, as preventing the title from being merchantable, thus showing that the fault to consummate the exchange was the fault of defendant and not of plaintiff. Id.

(33) In an action to recover an agreed broker's commission for procuring a purchaser for real property, brought against the husband of one of the twelve heirs thereto, it was permissible for the defendant to show, as bearing on the probability of his having employed plaintiff, that the property was held by the twelve heirs, the consent of all of whom would be necessary to effect the sale. Bourn v. Kelly, 176 N. Y. Sup. 22.

(34) A written agreement to pay a broker a stated commission for selling real estate, satisfying the statute of frauds, and purporting on its face to have been made after the sale, was properly admitted in evidence to show the relationship of principal and agent, in a suit for money had and received by such broker. Puffer v. Bodley, 181 P. 1, - Or. Sup. - .

(35) Evidence as to the market value of land conveyed to plaintiff by defendant, as part of the purchase price for land sold by plaintiff to another through defendant as agent, is admissible in action to recover the sum received by defendant in payment for such land, as part of the original cash offer for plaintiff's land, not disclosed by defendant to plaintiff, to show that plaintiff did not commit a breach in repudiating the transaction. Id.

(36) In a land broker's action upon principal's written agreement to pay for services performed, where answer alleged there was no consideration for agreement, parol evidence was not inadmissible as being violative of the statute of frauds requiring a brokers' contract to be in writing, but was admissible for the purpose of showing consideration. Batzlaff v. Trainor-Desmond Co., 183 P. 269, - Cal. App. - .

(37) In a broker's action for commission on a sale of listed property, any testimony tending to show that there was no agreement in the same sense between the parties relative to alleged contract of listment would be admissible. Pope v. Peeples, 101 S. E. 303, - Ga. App. - .

(38) In an action for a commission under a valid brokerage contract authorizing a sale on certain terms as to down payment and as to the balance, it was proper to admit proof that defendant had later sold the land and received a small payment down. Ed-mundson v. Phenix, 178 N. W. 893.

(39) A letter written to defendant by a stranger, on behalf of plaintiff, communicating the fact and terms of sale negotiated by plaintiff, was admissible. Id.

(40) Where amount of broker's commission for services in effecting an exchange of land is not agreed on, the fair market value of the property exchanged or offered for exchange would be competent and relevant. Morrison v. Jackson, 85 S. 573 (Ala. App.).