Whether the broker was in fact the procuring cause of the transaction entered into by the principal with the customer is properly left to the jury to determine. Smith v. Anderson, 2. Ida. (Harb.), 537, 21 P. 412; Colvin & Binard v. Lyons, 96 P. 572, 15 Idaho, 180; Rounds v. Alle, 116 Iowa, 345, 89 N. W. 1098; Reid v. McNerny, 128 Iowa, 350, 103 N. W. 1001; Roth-enberger v. Schoningerg, 30 Ky. L. R. 1018, 99 S. W. 1150; Hosmer v. Fuller, 168 Mass. 274, 47 N. E. 94; Kinder v. Pope, 106 Mo. App. 506, 80 S. W. 315; Armstrong v. Ft. Edward, 159 N. Y. 315, 53 N. E. 1116; Smith v. McGovern, 65 N. Y. 574; Palmer v. Durand, 70 N. Y. S. 1105, 62 App. Div. 467; Reddin v. Dam, 64 N. Y. S. 611, 51 App. Div. 636; Condict v. Cowdrey, 19 N. Y. S. 699, 61 N. Y. Super. Ct. 315; Smith v. Smith, 1

Sweeney (N. Y.), 552; Bickert v. Hoffman, 19 N. Y. S. 472; Bonwell v. Howes, 1 N. Y. S. 435; Shipman v. Freeh, 1 N. Y. S. 67; Burchfield v. Griffith, 10 Pa. Super Ct. 618; Van Tobel v. Stetson, etc., Mill Co., 32 Wash. 683, 73 P. 788; Willey v. Rutherford, 108 Wis. 35, 84 N. W. 14; Burden v. Briquilet, 125 Wis. 341, 104 N. W. 83; Goldsmith v. Coze, 80 S. C. 341, 61 S. E. 555; Murray v. Curry, 7 C. & P. (Eng.) 584, 32 Exch. 771; Jemoney v. Tollman, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 436; McLaughlin v. Campbell (N. J. Err. & App. '09), 74 A. 530; Shead v. Louisiana Lumber Co., 182 I11. App. 310; Kurtz v. Payne Inv. Co., 135 N. W. 1075, 156 Iowa, 376, pet. for re. over. but opin. mod., 137 N. W. 460; Seevers v. Cleveland Coal Co., 138 K W. 793, 158 Iowa, 574, Ann. Cas. 1915 D, 188; Duke v. Graham, 143 N. W. 817, 163 Iowa, 272; Blakeslee v. Peabody, 147 N. W. 570, 180 Mich. 408; Coffman v. Dyas Realty Co., 159 S. W. 842, 176 Mo. App. 692; Mason v. James M. Carpenter Realty Co., 179 S. W. 945, - Mo. App. -; Young v. Millan, 183 S. W. 355, - Mo. App. -; Peters v. Holmes, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 278; Byrne v. Ginsberg, 164 N. Y. Sup. 674; Fawley v. Sheldon, 163 N. W. 585, - Iowa Sup -; Ford v. Cole, 195 S. W. 661, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Seampson v. Vanderwilt, 173 P. 297, 106 Kan. 199; M. N. Clark & Co. v. Monson, 166 N. W. 576, - Iowa Sup. -; Rowland v. Progressive Inv. Co., 202 S. W. 257, - Mo. App. -; E. S. Truitt & Co. v. Gardner, 203 S. W. 638, - Mo. App. -; Boardman v. Courteen, 167 N. W. 814, 167 Wis. 625; Soper v. Deal, 175 P. 390, - Kan. Sup. -; Balto. Car Wheel Co. v. Clink, 104 A. 359,

- Md. Sup. -; Smith v. Chapin Home for Aged & In., 171 N. Y. Sup. 745; Buck v. Woodson, 209 S. W. 244, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Kislak v. Roberts, 177 N. Y. Sup. 194; Berraff v. Bergmann, 174 N. W. 901, - Wis. Sup. -; Murphy v. Linsky, 109 A. 412,

- Conn. Sup. -; Schmind v. Lacey, 178 N. W. 267, - Neb. Sup. -; Barney v. Beakley, 224 S. W. 531, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Baskett v. Jones, 225 S. W. 158, - Ky. Ct. App. - . See Sec. 446.