(1) The question whether defendant's demand for immediate payment was reasonable is immaterial, in the absence of fulfillment by plaintiff of all other conditions on the original contract. Wittever v. Hurwitz, 110 N. E. 433, 216 N. Y. 259, rev. judg., 143 N. Y. Supp. 1150, 158 App. Div. 890, re. den., 112 N. E. 1079, 217 N. Y. 666.

(2) In a broker's action to recover compensation for obtaining a purchaser for an option on certain land, evidence as to dealing between defendant and the landowner, held immaterial. O. W. Kerr Co. v. Corry, 211 F. 647, 128 C. C. A. 151.

(3) In an action on a note given to a broker for commissions in negotiating an exchange of property, evidence of the rentals of the property acquired by defendant in the exchange is immaterial. Cervernka v. Hunter, 185 I11. App. 547.

(4) In an action to recover broker's commission for finding a tenant for defendant, refusal to permit defendant to testify to the amount of rental he was paying; held, not error, for the reason that the evidence sought to be elicited had little bearing on the issues involved. Staff v. Steiger, 180 I11. App. 43.

(5) Whether principal, at time of sale, had any idea that the broker had any claim for commission, held immaterial. Howard v. Street, 93 A. 923, 125 Md. 289.

(6) In an action for commission for negotiating a sale of property, evidence as to whether the purchaser was the owner of any property in a certain section was immaterial. Clark v. Bonner, 104 N. E. 494, 217 Mass. 201.

(7) In an action for broker's commission, evidence as to time and money expended in finding a purchaser; held irrelevant, where no show of a break in completion of the trade was made. Newman v. Dunleavy, 149 P. 970, 51 Mont. 149.

(8) A broker suing on a contract for commissions on sale of real estate, without restrictions, may not show that the owner subsequently executed a deed, without restrictions, to prove the contract alleged. Greene v. Agnew, 151 N. W. 268, 160 Wis. 224.

(9) Where broker claimed that he was to have all received upon the sale over $4,500, evidence that defendant had previously listed form for sale at $4,500, and that it was worth only $3,500; held, improperly admitted. Williams v. Otto, 148 N. W. 367, 181 Mich. 657.

(10) A letter from the purchaser to defendant's attorneys containing proposition for reselling, and stating that the salesman of the plaintiff broker made certain representations concerning the property; held, properly excluded as irrelevant. Swift v. Moore, 82 S. E. 914, 15 Ga. App. 254.

(11) In an action against principal for a commission on sale of realty, letters from prospective purchaser to his attorney, stating that he did not desire to close trade with defendant unless he acquired an adjoining tract; held irrelevant. Stout v. Thornhill, 79 S. 154, - Ala. App. - .