Sec. 237. Principal May Employ Several Brokers (P. 250)

"Where the principal employs several agents as brokers, the sale of the land by one of the agents or the principal terminates the authority of them all, although notice of the sale may not have been given, and the principal will only be liable for a commission to the agent who was the procuring cause of the sale. If the brokers have no knowledge of the employment of others, the broker who was the procuring cause of the sale is entitled to his commissions, no matter if another broker or the principal takes up the matter and completes the sale.1 A number of agents may have rendered service, such as finding a purchaser who otherwise would not have been found, and yet may fail to consummate a sale, and another may take it up and complete it, and the last one would be entitled to the commissions."1

So where property is placed in the hands of several brokers for the purpose of securing a tenant, the owner is ordinarily obligated to pay commissions only to the one who was the procuring cause of the lease.3

When sued by one broker, the principal may introduce proof to show that another broker brought about the sale or lease.4 and where the owner of property defends a broker's action on the ground that the broker was not the procuring cause, the owner may prove that he paid another broker the commission.5

Add to footnote 1 (p. 251):

Dalke v. Sivyer. 105 Pac. (Wash.) 1031 (1909); Baldino v. Henneberry. 191 111. App. 368 (1915); Smith v. Fowler, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 356; 121 S. W. 598 (1909).

1Citing Clark ft Sykes on Agency, Sec. 779.

2Smith v. Fowler, 57 Tex. Civ. App.356; 122 S. W. 598 (1909); Whitcomb V.

Bacon, 170 Mass. 479; 49 N. E. 742; 64 Am. St. Rep. 317; Reynolds v. Tompkins, 23 W. \a. 235; Francis v. Eddy, 49 Minn. 447; 52 N.W. 43; Platt v. J.,hr. 9 Ind.

App 58; 36 N. E, 294: Scott v. Floyd, 19 Colo. 401; 35 Pac. 733; Ward v. Fletcher, 124 Mass. 224; Clascock v. Vanfleet, 100 Tenn. 603; 46 S. W. 449.

3 Thorpe v. Cameron, 191 III. App. 455 (1915).

4 Fredel v. Baldinger, 138 N. Y. Suppl. 147 (1912).

5 Owcharoffskv v. Trustees of W. C. M. Charta, 86 Misc. 36; 148 N. Y. Suppl. 138 (1914).

Sec. 239. Exclusive Agency (P. 251) Add To Footnote 10 (P. 252):

Snook v. Page (Cal. App.) 155 Pac. 107 (1915); Hill v. Horsley, 82 S. E. (Ga.) 225 (1914); Stallworth v. Martin, 87 S. E. (Ga.) 1094 (1916); Wright v. Waite, 126 Minn. 115; 148 N. W. 50 (1914).

Sec. 240. Intervention By Principal (P. 252) Add To Footnote 13:

Dalke v. Sivyer, 105 Pac. (Wash.) 1031 (1909).

Sec. 242. Rule When Broker's Efforts Fail (P. 253) At End Of Sec. 242 ( P. 254), Odd:

But the owner cannot escape payment of commissions by col-lusively arranging with the real purchaser, produced by the broker, to give the transaction the appearance of a purchase by some other person than the real purchaser.6

6 Fifer v. Lewis, 183 111. App. 349 (1914).