Where a broker is employed to purchase or to make a sale of lands and the principal refuses to accept or to part with the property, as the case may be, or otherwise breaks the contract of employment, the broker may maintain an action for a breach of the contract. Atkinson v. Peck, 114 N. C. 597, 19 S. E. 628; Roberts v. Barnes, 1 Cab. & E. (Eng.), 336; Burnet v. Edling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775; Henry & Sons v. Colo. F. & L. S. Co., 164 F. 986; Briggs v. Hall, 141 P. 1067, 24 Cal. App. 586; Goldman v. Weisman, 143 N. W. 983, 123 Minn. 370; Robinson v. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co., 155 P. 202, - Okl. Sup. -; Harris v. Van Vranken, 155 N. W. 65, - N. D. Sup. -; Atl. Coast Realty Co. v. Townsend, 98 S. E. 681, - Va. Sup. - .

Where an owner of land, after he agreed with a broker to extend the time for a sale, and after he knew the broker had procured a purchaser for a later date, revoked the authority of the broker to sell, and then sold to the person procured by the broker, he is liable to the broker for such damages as arose from such unlawful revocation of the agency. Hancock v. Stacey, 125 S. W. 884, 103 Tex. 219, - Civ. App. - , 116 S. W. 117, aff.

Where an owner breached its contract to pay brokers instalments on commissions as lands are sold, the brokers were relieved from continuing to make sales, and were entitled to commissions on sales made, though they were not prevented from making further sales by the owner's refusal to make the payments. Tilton v. James L. Gates Land Co., 121 N. W. 331, 140 Wis. 197.

Although as a general rule a contract with an agent to sell land, within a certain time, is revocable before the termination of the time specified, yet if the agent has rendered service in relation thereto, he may sue the principal for a breach of the contract and recover damages. Green v. Cole, 103 Mo. 70, 15 S. W. 317; Durkee v. Gunn, 41 Kan. 496, 21 P. 637; Bathrik v. Coffin, 43 N. Y. S. 313, 13 App. Div. 101; Rowan v. Hull, 55 W. Va. 335, 47 S. E. 92; Tappin v. Henley, 11 Weekly Rep. (Eng.), 466; Anderson v. Shafer, 124 P. 423, 87 Kan. 346; Johnson & Moran v. Buchman, 116 S. W. 875, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 328; Williamson Real Estate Co. v. Sasser, 103 S. E. 73, - N. C. Sup. - . See also Sec. 22.

Where a real estate agent having a contract to sell lands to a third person at an advanced price purchases the land himself from his principal, without disclosing to him that such is the contract, which he thereafter completes, renders himself liable to his principal in damages. Kingsley v. Wheeler, 95 Minn. 360, 104 N. W. 543. See also Sec. 290.

An owner of land, which his agent has sold, can not recover damages from that agent for fraud, where such owner, knowing of a resale by the vendee and suspecting his agent of connivance in said resale at an advanced price, refuses, while the contract is still executory, to avail himself of the usual means of ascertaining the truth, and, nevertheless, evecutes the contract. Ber-tleson v. Vanderhoff, 96 Minn. 184, 104 N. W. 820. See also Sec. 24.

Where a contract employing a broker to procure a purchaser stipulates that the commissions shall be paid only when a sale is effected, the broker is not entitled to commissions unless a sale is effected, though he may be entitled to damages for the wrongful act of the owner in preventing a sale. McDermott v. Mahoney (Iowa Sup. '08), 115 N. W. 32, 139 Iowa 292; affirming on rehearing, 106 N. W. 925.

An action for damages will lie against a real estate agent delivering a contract for the exchange of property to the other party, in violation of the principal's instructions. Hawes v. Burkholz, 114 N. Y. S. 765. See also Sec. 290.

Where a real estate broker is employed for a definite period to procure a purchaser for the property of the owner, and the broker is discharged without cause, before the expiration of the period, or is not permitted to undertake the performance of the contract, the owner is liable to the agent for the damages. Johnson v. Buchanan (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 116 S. W. 875. A broker may recover anticipated profits as damages for breach of his contract of employment. Blumenthal v. Bridges (Ark. Sup. '09), 120 S. W. 974.

Where the buyer of real estate receives a deed therefor, with special warranty against incumbrances, and pays over the purchase price to the brokers of the seller, the buyer can recover on such warranty from the seller, where it develops that the brokers thereafter accounted to the seller for the difference between an existing incumbrance on the property and the purchase price, but fraudulently failed to pay and secure a release of such incumbrance. Babson v. Cox, 32 App. D. C. 542.

Defendant employed plaintiff to procure an exchange of land of defendant's to a third person. It was orally agreed that the third person should pay plaintiff his commission, and the contract between defendant and the third person for the exchange was also oral. Defendant refused to consummate the exchange and plaintiff lost his commission. Held, that as the oral contract for the exchange of real estate, though unenforceable, under the statute of frauds, may be lawfully performed, the fact that the third person could not enforce the agreement did not deprive plaintiff of his action for damages against defendant for the loss of his commissions. Bird v. Blackwell (Mo. App. '09), 115 S. W. 487.

If the vendor's broker misrepresented the acreage, and the purchaser relied on the representations, the purchaser can recover compensation for any material shortage, not exceeding the price per acre paid. Farris v. Gilder (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 115 S. W. 645.

Where defendant agreed to purchase certain property at an agreed price if plaintiff would procure its sale, knowing that plaintiff would receive a commission from the owner, and therefore refused to purchase, plaintiff could recover the amount of such commissions. James v. Home of the Sons and Daughters of Israel, 153 N. Y. Sup. 169.

Where defendant employed a broker to procure a loan for him, agreeing to pay 5% commission, and the broker applied to plaintiff, consenting that the amount of plaintiff's expenses should be deducted from the commission to be paid to him. Defendant, on refusing the loan which plaintiff was ready to make, was liable to plaintiff for such expenses. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Carroll, 129 N. Y. Sup. 919, 145 App. Div. 926.

Where defendants, acting as real estate brokers at the time they executed an option authorizing plaintiff's agent to purchase a large tract of land, acknowledged that they had no authority to sell a portion of the land contained in the contract, they were guilty of legal bad faith within Code, Art. 1934, providing that where the object of a contract is anything but the payment of money, the damages due shall be the amount of the creditor's loss of the profits of which he has been deprived, and in case the execution of the contract has proceeded from fraud or bad faith, the debtor shall be liable, not only for such damages as were or might have been foreseen at the time of making the contract, but also to such as are the immediate and direct consequence of the breach of contract, so that plaintiffs, having been compelled to purchase such part of the land from the owner at a higher price than that specified in the option, were not limited to the recovery of the difference between the option price and what they were compelled to pay. Tulane Ed. F. Admin. v. Baccich & De Montluzin, 56 S. 371, 129 La. 469.

Where an agent, with authority to do so, executes a contract to sell land in the name of his principal, and the principal agrees to complete the sale "as soon as my wife is able to sign," and then refuses to complete the transfer, the purchaser can recover the resulting damages therefrom. Whitehouse v. Gerdis, 145 Hi W. 338, 95 Neb. 228.

Real estate agent employed to exchange land for other property, who falsely represented that other property listed with him was worth $1,500, and thereby induced an exchange, was liable to principal in damages. Suderman v. Koch, 168 P. 906, 101 Kan. 708.

Under agreement between defendant and third party providing for an exchange of deeds to realty, and an agreement by defendant to pay plaintiff's commissions on day set for delivery, the commission was earned where defendant sued third party for breach of contract negotiated by broker and recovered damages. Haber v. Goldberg, 105 A. 874, - N. J. Ct. of Err. and App. - .

A purchaser is not entitled to damages against a broker for misrepresentation of a tract of land received in exchange, where purchaser relied upon her own investigation and not on the broker's representations. Myers v. Linebarger, 222 S. W. 720, - Ark. Sup. - .