³ Hobbs v. Edgar, 23 Misc. 618 (N. T. 1898).
4 See also Branch v. Moore, 105 S. W. 1178 (Ark. 1907).
5 See Sec. 237 infra.
Where there are two brokers, the one who first calls the customer's attention to the property is not necessarily entitled to the commissions. If the other broker in good faith and without collusion consummates the sale, he is entitled to the commission.6 " Unless he specially agrees not to do so, an owner may employ two or more brokers. In such case it is the broker who is the efficient cause of the sale who is entitled to commissions, and this right is not affected by the fact that such broker sells to one whose attention to the property had before been called by another broker. It is not the broker who first speaks of the property, but he who is the procuring cause of the sale, be he the first or second to engage the attention of the purchaser.7 The party selling, where several brokers have been employed, may in the absence of all collusion on his part, pay to the agent through whose instrumentality the sale was brought about, without inquiry as to whether some other broker may not have had something to do with effecting the sale." 8
"Whatever may be the rights of a real estate broker who takes a customer away from another broker and closes a sale between such customer and the owner, if done without the aid or connivance of the owner, yet if the owner, with knowledge of the facts, deals with the customer of the first broker, even through another agent, he will be liable to the first broker."9 Where two brokers are apparently working on the same purchaser, the one who first brings the purchaser up to the terms of the employer is entitled to the commissions.10
In Jennings v. Trammer, 96 Pac. 874, (Ore. 1908), the court quotes from Tinsley v. Scott, 69 III. App. 352,
6 Martin v. Rillings. 2 N. Y. City Ct. Rep. 86 (1884); McCloskey v. Thompson, 26 Misc. 735 (N. Y. 1899).
7 Citing Mechem on Agency, Sec. 969; Vreeland v. Vetterlein, 33 N. J. L. 247; Sib-bald v. The Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378.
8 Patten v. Willis, 134 111. App. 651, 652 (1907). quoting from McGuire v. Carlson, 61 111. App. 295. See Sec. 338-346 infra.
9 Jennings v. Trnmmer, 96 Pac. 874 (Ore. 1908).
10 Freedman v. Havenmeyer, 37 App. Div. 518 (N. Y. 1899); Hennings v. Parsons, 108 Va. 3 (1908).
355: "Of several independent brokers under such employment at the same time, the one who first so sells is entitled to the commission. No express contract to that effect is required to give him that right. But, to be a producer, the party presented must be a client or a customer of his own, and not one then sustaining that relation to another broker under like employment. If he was first in negotiation with such other, he continues to sustain that relation to him until it is expressly broken off, or the matter of the purchase has ceased to be held by him under consideration. The employer, with notice of the pendency of such negotiation, cannot escape liability to the broker for his commission by selling to his customer through another, even though he first discharges the former if he does so without giving him a reasonable time, to effect the sale."11 "Where two brokers are employed, the one effects the sale who brings the minds of the parties to meet."12