In an action for a broker's services, an answer alleging that the proposed purchaser was plaintiff's uncle, and that they entered into collusion, whereby the uncle was to pretend to defendant that he was ready and willing to purchase the lands and pay for the same in cash, and that defendant, under the belief that the proposed purchaser was acting in good faith fixed a day and place for the execution of the deed, when plaintiff and his uncle questioned the description for the purpose of delay, and that before the adjourned day fixed for the execution of the deed, defendant was informed that the proposed purchaser would not take the land until he had had an opportunity to reinspect it, which he never did, states a sufficient defense. McAfee v. Bending, 36 Ind. App. 628, 76 N. E. 412.

Where throughout the transactions involving the sale of defendant's property by plaintiff, a broker, defendant believed that she was dealing with the purchaser alone, to whom her written contract of sale was executed and delivered, the facts that immediate assignment was made by the purchaser to another, followed by the procurement from defendant of a written ratification, with a modification giving to the assignee the right to a conveyance, and the payment by such assignee of the purchaser's check, given in part payment of the purchase price, were circumstances tending to support her claim that the contract was procured through the misrepresentations of all of the parties acting in concert. Kurinsky v. Lynch, 201 Mass. 28, 8? N. E. 70.

It is immaterial to a real estate agent's right to commission on a sale procured by him that he did not obtain an offer for his principal on terms as good as those on which the sale was made, where the buyer and the seller colluded together to deprive the broker of his right to commission. Lipscomb v. Mastin, 125 S. W. 1177, 142 Mo. App. 228.

Where a broker brought about an exchange of lands between plaintiff and defendant, and by collusion between broker and defendant misrepresented the contract to plaintiff, who could not read or write, plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract, whether or not the broker was his agent. Stelter v. Fowler, 113 P. 1096, 62 Wash. 345, mot. to mod. judg. den., 114 P. 879, 62 Wash. 345.

In an action by a broker to have a lien declared on land for a certain commission, on the ground that the transfer of the land was collusive, and for the purpose of barring him of his commission, the burden was upon the broker to show concerted action and collusion on the part of the grantee and other defendants, the broker's claim being that the grantee was purchasing for another, a transfer to whom would entitle the broker to a commission. Sanders v. Berry, 214 S. W. 58, - Ark. Sup. - .