(1) In a broker's action for commission on sale which was not completed, whether there was an agreement as to the payment of a commission; held, a question for the jury. Worthen v. Stewart, 172 S. W. 855, 116 Ark. 294.

(2) In an action for commission, evidence held sufficient to go to the jury, on the question whether a contract was made prior or subsequent to obtaining a license. Van Gilder v. Kamper, 192 I11. App. 25.

(3) In an action by a real estate broker to recover commission which he claimed was due him in furthering a sale, evidence held insufficient to go to the jury. Hall v. Ware, 148 S. W. 1197, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(4) In an action against a married woman and her husband to recover commission for producing a purchaser for her land, evidence held sufficient to carry to the jury the question whether the woman authorized the sale. Bailey v. Padgett, 70 S. 637, 195 Ala. 203.

(5) Evidence held to make out a jury question, whether defendant, in making contract with plaintiff, acted for himself, or for an agent of his company, or for a certain railroad company. Myers v. Kilgen, 160 S. W. 569, 177 Mo. App. 724.

(6) Evidence held to authorize submitting issue, whether broker abandoned his contract before any sales were made. Elser v. Putnam Land & Dev. Co., 171 S. W. 1052, re. den., Id. 1200, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(7) Whether a broker employed to find a specific property for an intending purchaser brought about a purchase of property disclosed by him; held, under the evidence, for the jury. Murphy v. Knights of Columbus Building Co., 135 S. W. 446, 155 Mo. App. 649.

(8) Evidence held to require submission to a jury, of the question whether the broker had performed his contract within a reasonable time. Tull v. Starmer, 176 S. W. 511, 188 Mo. App. 713.

(9) In a suit for commissions for an alleged sale of certain lots, where the alleged contract of sale consists of letters, telegrams, and telephonic conversations, the material question is, as to whether there was a meeting of the minds of the parties on the terms of the proposed sale, but there was a conflict in the evidence as to the conversations, the question was for the jury. Cul-bertson v. Mann, 120 P. 918, 30 Okl. 249.

(10) In an action by a broker for compensation, the question whether the seller misrepresented his title, and was unable to deliver the property free from undisclosed incumbrances; held, for the jury. Lord v. Crane, 138 N. Y. Sup. 383, 78 Misc. Rep. 389.

(11) Evidence held to present question for jury, whether note given by principal to broker was in extinguishment of commission liability, or as mere evidence thereof. Harnwell v. J. D. Arnold & Co., 193 S. W. 506, - Ark. Sup. - .

(12) Whether defendant told plaintiff broker that he could not secure his wife's signature to a conveyance, is a jury question in plaintiff broker's action for commission, where the defendant testified he made such statement, and the broker denied it. Cain v. Masuretta, 162 N. W. 287, 196 Mich. 464.

(13) In broker's action for commission, whether written agreement between the parties had been given up by plaintiff so as to render it of no effect; held, for the jury. Freeman v. Van Wage-man, 101 A. 55, - N. J. - .

(14) In suit for commission, whether agent disclosed the name of alleged purchaser to owner of land; held, under the evidence, for the jury. Coppage v. Howard, 103 A. 439, 132 Md. 233.

(15) In an action for a commission for negotiating a resale of land based on a written contract; held, that the question of duress was for the jury. Snyder v. Samuelson, 167 N. W. 287, - Minn. Sup. - .

(16) Whether plaintiff, suing for broker's commission, sustained the burden of proving that he had put and kept in force defendant's exclusive brokers' contract, by making an effort to sell defendant's real property, was a question for the jury. Howard & Brown Realty Go. v. Barnett, 206 S. W. 417, - Mo. App. - .

(17) In real estate broker's action for commission for finding lessee, evidence held to sustain submission to a jury of question, whether the minds of owner and procured lessee met upon a lease, and whether owner's refusal to execute lease was a breach. Good-kind v. 0. L. S. Realty Corp., 173 N. Y. Sup. 482.

(18) In broker's action on commission notes and to foreclose lien reserved in the deed, where broker's lien is shown by facts pleaded was inferior to vendors' lien for purchase price, vendors were entitled to show they had a lien superior to that of broker, and to have jury pass on such issue. Speer v. Dalrymple, 222 S. W. 174; - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(19) In an action for commission on loan and abstract made by defendant, case held for jury under evidence making a prima facie case for plaintiff, and evidence tending to impeach him as a witness. Grain v. McKinley, 222 S. W. 495, - Mo. App. - .

(20) In a realty broker's action for a sale commission, whether either or both of two conditions, that he must sell to some one other than the actual purchaser and that he must sell for $9,500, were a part of the contract; held, for the jury. Shortridge v. Raiffeisen, 222 S. W. 1031, - Mo. App. - .

(21) In a broker's action for commission for producing a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy land, where the broker had leased the land for defendant owner, with knowledge of conditions of lease, and there was conflicting evidence on the issue, whether plaintiff had received assurances over the telephone from defendant that immediate possession could be given, as required by purchaser, notwithstanding the lease, that question was a material issue of fact for the jury. Cohogen v. Big Bend Land Co., 186 P. 1070, - Wash. Sup. - .

(22) In a broker's action for commission against owner who, instead of selling the land to procured purchaser, had sold it to third party who, in turn, sold it to such procured purchaser, evidence held insufficient to warrant submission to jury, the question whether owner fraudulently sold land to third party as blind to deprive broker of commission. Lotion v. True, 216 S. W. 54, - Mo. App. - .