If, as a proximate result of the introduction of the purchaser to the owner by the agent, the owner makes the sale himself, either personally or by another agent, it will not exonerate the owner from the payment of commission to the agent who has initiated the negotiations.61 "But if the casual connection between the introducing agent and the procurement of the sale be broken, the first agent is not entitled to any commission."62
An introduction is not necessary if the broker is actually the procuring cause of the sale. 63 All that is necessary is for the owner before making the sale himself to acquire the knowledge - it matters not in what manner - that the purchaser is the client of the broker and has been procured by the broker to purchase the specific piece of property at the price and upon the terms designated.64
Although it is not essential that the broker should have introduced the buyer to the owner, or even have known the buyer, or that the owner should know that the broker was the producing cause of the sale to the buyer,65 yet it must affirmatively appear that the purchaser was induced to apply to the owner through the means employed by the broker.66
It is not necessary that the broker should bring the proposed purchaser into the physical presence of the owner, especially so where the owner positively refuses to go on with the sale under any terms. 67 Where, however, "the broker introduces one party to the other and a sale results, unless he is able to show employment, that fact does not entitle him to compensation."68 And in Patten v. Willis, 134 111. App. 651 (1907), the court quotes from Fessenden v. Doane, 188 111. 228-231, as follows: "One claiming commission for the sale of real estate cannot rightfully claim the benefit of introducing to the defendant a purchaser for the property who had already been introduced to him as such by another party, with and through whom negotiations were already in progress and were continued to a consummation of the sale." The production by the broker of a contract of purchase signed by the purchaser is legally equivalent to the production of the purchaser himself.69
61 Levy v. Wolf, 84 Pac. 313 (Cal. 1905), (citing Tyler ▼. Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440).
62 Platt v. Johr. 9 Ind. App. 61 (1893).
63 Leech v. Clemons, 14 Colo. App. 48 (1899); Wright v. McClIntock, 136 111. App. 441 (1907). And see Sec. 96 supra.
64 Church v. Dunham, 14 Idaho 782 (1908), (citing Wood v. Broderson. 12 Idaho 190: 85 Pac 490; Lemon v. De Wolf, 89 Minn. 465; 95 N. W. 316; note to Ward T. Cobb, 12 Am. St. Rep. 589).
65 Colonial Trust Co. v. Pacific Co., 158 Fed. 280 (1907).
66 Kalfstein v. Jackson, 132 App. Div. 1 (N. Y. 1909); Hafner v. Herron, 165 111. 24C (1897).
67 Getzelsohn v. Donnelly, 50 Misc. 164 (N. Y. 1906).
"Where a broker is employed to sell property and he advertises it, and an intending purchaser is attracted by the advertisements, and submits an offer to the broker and this is communicated to the owner, and the negotiations are then continued without interruption until a sale is consummated, the broker is entitled to commissions, even though the sale appears to have been finally consummated between the owner and the purchaser directly.70
But where the broker advertised the property in the newspapers, and the broker's attention was attracted to a prospective purchaser by the advertisements of such purchaser, and wrote letters to him, but never saw the purchaser or received any answers to his letters, nor ever introduced the purchaser to the owner, the effectiveness of the broker's instrumentality in bringing about the sale must affirmatively appear if commissions are to be recovered.71
68 Bright v. Canadian Int. Stock Yard Co., 83 Hun 482 (N. Y. 1895). See also "Emplovment," Sec. 103-112 supra.
69 Young v. Ruhwedel, 119 Mo. App. 242 (1906).
70 Doran v. Bussard. 18 App. Div. 387 (N. Y. 1897) ; Bell v. Kaiser. 50 Mo. 150 (1872); Goffe v. Gibson, 18 Mo. App. 4 (1885); Latta v. King, 6 D. C. 310 (1868).