Add to footnote 1:
Hancock v. Dodge, 85 Miss. 228 (1904). See Miss. Code of 1892, Sec.4225, par. (C).
A verbal modification of written authority to sell real estate does not render the altered authority obnoxious to the Statute of Frauds.1 There is, however, authority that where a broker is given written authority in compliance with the statute, it cannot be subsequently orally modified so as to authorize the broker to sell for a less price than stated in the written authorization.2
"Under a section of a statute of frauds declaring that 'no broker or real estate agent selling or exchanging land for or on account of the owner shall be entitled to any commission for the same, or exchange any real estate unless the authority for selling or exchanging such land is in writing, signed by the owner or his authorized agent, and the rate of commission on the dollar shall have been stated, in such authority,' it was determined that, in the absence of a previous written contract, a subsequent written promise to pay the commission was without consideration and void.3 A different conclusion was reached in the case of Muir v. Kane,4 where, in construing a statute providing that any agreement authorizing a broker to sell or purchase real property for a commission should be void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof was in writing, it was decided that the performance of the services under an oral agreement, void under the statute of frauds, raised a moral obligation which was a sufficient consideration to support a subsequent written promise to pay the stipulated compensation. When an enactment expressly declares that an agreement for the payment of a commission for securing a purchaser of land is void, unless it is in writing and signed by the owner of the real property, the rule is well established that, in the absence of a written contract, a full performance of the services by the broker does not take the case out of the statute of frauds."5
1 Furse v. Lambert. 85 Neb. 739; 124 N. W. 146 (1910).
2 Wellenger v. Crawford, (Ind. App.) 89 N. E. 892 (1909).
3 Sorensen v. Smith, 65 Or. 78: 129 Pac. 757; 131 Pac. 1022; 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 612; 35 Ann. Cas. 1127 (1913); citing Stout v. Humphrey, 69 N. J. L. 436; 55 Atl 281; Leimbach v. Regner, 70 N. J. L. 603; 57 Atl. 138; Bagnole v. Madden, 76 N. J. L. 255; 69 At!. 967.
455 Wash. 131; 104 Pac. 153: 19 Ann. Cas. 1180; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 519.
Add to footnote 14:
Heyman v. Stopper, 91 Atl. (N. J.) 1069 (1914); affg. 85 N. J. L. 128; 88 Atl. 946.
Although a - contract employing a broker is required to be in writing, that would not apply to an agreement by a principal broker to pay an assistant a specified commission for services.6