Sec. 204. The Employer Is Usually Liable For Broker's Commissions (P. 212)

One tenant in common cannot bind the other in the employment of a broker without the latter's acquiescence, nor can the latter be held on the theory of ratification unless such ratification be with full knowledge of all the material facts.11

Sec. 205. Promises To Pay Commissions (P. 213)

Add to footnote 8, after Belleshein v. Palm:

Courtney v. Rhodes, 148 App. Div. 799; 133 N. Y. Suppl. 363 (1912).

Sec. 206. Liability Of Persons Not Owning The Property (P. 214)

A person, although he may not be the owner of the property, who deals as principal, and who does not disclose his principal until after the broker has produced a purchaser ready and willing to purchase on the terms fixed by such person, is liable for the commissions earned by the broker.12

Where a third person without authority from, or knowledge of, the owner of lands employs a broker to procure a purchaser, he is personally liable to the broker for commissions when a sale is effected But the owner himself is not liable.13

In an action by a broker to recover commissions for procuring a purchaser for real property, testimony by defendant, the owner of the property, that her husband acted for her and handled her property entirely and absolutely, is sufficient to show general authority in the husband to employ a broker, although special authority to do so is denied.14

Where a real estate broker is employed to procure a sale of real property by one claiming to be the owner, and it later appears that the land was in fact owned by his wife, whose agent he was, it is the broker's duty after learning the facts to elect whether he will hold the husband for his commissions for failure to disclose the principal or whether he will hold the wife for the act of her agent. When the facts are known there is a duty to elect, and an election made with full knowledge of the facts is binding. Where the broker although knowing the facts sues both husband and wife jointly for his commissions, a judgment entered in his favor against both defendants will be reversed.15

11 Pretzfelder v. Strobel. 17 Misc. 152; 39 N. Y. Suppl. 333 (1896).

12 Taubenblatt v. Galewski, 108 N. Y. Suppl. 588 (Sup. Ct. App. Term, 1908); Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 N. Y. 349; Arfman v. Hare 27 Misc. 777; 57 N. Y. Suppl. 759; Rounds v. Allee, 116 Iowa 345; 89 N. W. 1098 (1902).

13 Kennon v. Poerschke, 148 App. Div. 839; 133 N. Y. Suppl. 528 (1912).

14Cannon v. Bannon, 151 App. Div. 693; 136 N. Y. Suppl. 139 (1912); Arnold v. Loomis, 148 Pac. (Cal.) 518 (1915); cf. Bierkamp v. Beuthicn, 155 N. \V. (Iowa) 819 (1915).

"While there are numerous authorities that a debtor will not be held to have made an election in favor of the principal where he has proceeded against the agent without full knowledge of the facts, yet the weight of authority both in England and in this country is that where an election has been made with full knowledge of the facts it. is controlling, and that where the facts are known there is a duty to elect."16

When a lawyer applies to a title company for a search, and discloses that he is acting for his client and assumes no personal liability, the title company cannot hold the lawyer personally for its fees.17