If the purchaser is found by the broker's efforts and through his instrumentality, he is entitled to compensation, although the owner negotiates the sale himself.12
Also, if the owner, while the broker is treating for the sale of the property, interferes and makes a bargain himself with the same person for the sale, upon the terms prescribed for the broker, or upon any other terms, he is liable for the commissions.13 Thus where a broker employed to sell at a specified price, procures a proposed purchaser and opens negotiations with him, the fact that the employer, without terminating the agency or the negotiations so commenced, takes the matter into his own hands and concludes the sale at a lower price does not deprive the broker of his right to commissions.14
Where a broker opens negotiations, but fails to bring the customer to the specified terms and abandons the negotiations, the employer may subsequently sell to the same person at the price fixed, without liability for commission.15 Also, where there was no employment, and the owner sold the property to a person who had made an offer through the broker almost two years before, it was held that there was no ratification of an employment of the broker alleged to have been made by the owner's agent, especially where the owner himself knew nothing about any claim of the broker.16
10 Levy v. Rothe, supra; Dole v. Sherwood, 5 L. R. A. 720 (Minn. 1889).
11Davis v. Van Tassel, 107 N. Y. Suppl. 910 (1907); Wiggins v. Wilson, 45 So. 1014 (Fla. 1908), (citing Waterman v. Boltlnghouse, 82 Cal. 659; 23 Pac. 195; Cath-cart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34 ; 49 N. W. 331; Blodgett v. Sioux C. & St. P. Ry. Co., 63 Iowa 606; 19 N. W. 799; McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 How. (U. S.) 221; 15 L. Ed. 884; Wylie v. Marine Nat. Bk., 61 N. Y. 415; Babcock v. Merritt, 1 Colo. App. 84 ; 27 Pac. 882; Stephens v. Scott, 43 Kans. 285; 23 Pac. 555; Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 99; 4 So. 180; Illingsworth v. Slosson, 19 111. App. 612; Cullen v. Bell, 43 Minn. 226; 45 N. W. 428). See also Sec. 99, 100 supra.
12 Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N. Y. 322 (1873). See also Sec. 100 supra.
13 Briggs v. Boyd, 56 N. Y. 294 (1874); Hovey v. Aaron, 133 Mo. App. 582 (1908); Hoadley v. Savings Bk., 71 Conn. 599 (1899). See also Sec. 129, 130 supra.
14 Hobbs v. Edgar, 23 Misc. 618 (N. Y. 1898); McGovern v. Bennett, 140 Mich. 558 (1906); Glade v. Eastern 111. Min. Co., 107 S. W. 1005 (Mo. 1908).
In Miller v. Vining, 112 App. Div. 304 (N. Y. 1906), where the negotiations with the prospective purchaser were broken off, and the broker undertook to sell him other properties of different people, and a month afterward, without the intervention of the broker, the owner and the purchaser came together on different terms, resulting in a sale, the court, in holding that the broker was not entitled to commissions, said: "It is elementary that to be entitled to commissions the broker must be the procuring cause of the sale, and if his efforts fail his employer is not precluded from thereafter negotiating with the purchaser introduced by him, even on the same terms, without being obliged to pay commissions."