Sec. 52. Acting For Both Parties With Their Knowledge (P. 51)

Add to footnote 11:

Ramey v. Sturgeon, 86 S. E. (Ga.) 660 (1915); Madden v. Davis, 192 111. App. 575 (1915).

Defendant employed as broker by two principals to procure an exchange of their real estate agreed to give plaintiff one-half of the commissions. Plaintiff at the inception of the negotiations was an accredited agent of one of the principals, but was never an agent of the other principal, and never informed him of the agreement to divide commissions. Plaintiff's principal was informed of, and consented to, the agreement. Held, that the agreement between the brokers was enforceable, for the transaction did not contravene any rule regulating the duties of an agent to his principal, and both principals contracting to pay commissions to defendant on consummation of the exchange, which was done.6

Sec. 54. Broker Vested With No Discretion May Act For Both Parties (P. 52)

A id to footnote 17 (p. 58):

American Security & Investment Co. v. Penney, 129 Minn. 369; 152 N. W. 771 (1915).

3 Silberkraus v. Winnie, 158 App. Div. 50; 142 N. Y. Suppl. 887 (1913). 4 Ramey v. Sturgeon, 86 S. E. (Ga.) 660 (1915). And see Mecum v. Moyer, 166 App. Div. 793, 805; 152 N. Y. Suppl. 385 (1915). 5See Sec. 220 6Head note'in Hladik v. Allen, 26 Cal.. App. 509; 147 Pac. 474 (1915).

Sec. 55. Compensation Of Broker Without Discretion (P. 53)

Add to footnote 19:

King v. Reed, 24 Cal. App. 229; 141 Pac. 41 (1914); Langford v. Issenhuth, 28 S. D. 451; 134 N. W. 889; Jordan v. Anderson, 155 N. W. (S. D.) 769 (1915).

Sec. 58. How Question Of Double Employment Is Raised (P. 56)

Add to footnote 23 (p. 56) :

Jacobs v. Beyer, 141 App. Div. 49; 125 N. Y. Suppl. 597 (1910).

Add to footnote 24 (p. 57):

See also Nichols v. Greenstreet, 71 Misc. 196; 130 N. Y. Suppl. 843 (1911); affd. 146 App. Div. 940; 131 N. Y. Suppl. 1131.

On page 57, at end of Sec. 58, add the following paragraphs:

But although the defense is not pleaded, the objection is waived if the broker permits evidence with regard to the double employment to be given without objection.7

In any event, the question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.8

Although there is conflict, as noted, concerning the question whether the principal may, without pleading it as a defense, avail himself of the fact that the broker secretly agreed for compensation from the other party, it is said to be incumbent upon the broker, where he has a secret agreement for double commissions, to establish that his agreement for double commissions is not inconsistent with the terms of his original employment.9

7 Jacobs v. Beyer, 141 App. Div. 49; 125 N. Y. Suppl. 597 (1910). 8 Rees v. Gair, 144 App. Div. 294; 129 N. Y. Suppl. 213 (1911). 9Nichols v. Greenstreet, 71 Misc. 196, 130 N. Y. Suppl. 843 (1911); affd., 146 App. Div. 940; 131 N. Y. Suppl. 1131.