To entitle a real estate broker to his commission, he must produce a person who actually purchases the property by complying with the terms agreed upon, unless his failure to do so is caused by the fault of the vendor. Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250; Fox v. Began, 240 I11. 391, 88 N E. 974;

Briggs v. Rowe, 1 Abb. Dec. (K Y.) 189, 4 Keyes, 424; Burnett v. Eddling, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 711, 48 S. W. 775; Parker v. Nat. Bdg., etc. Assn., 55 W. Va. 134, 46 S. E. 811; Hugill v. Weekly, 64 W. Va. 210, 61 S. E. 360, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1262; Bamberger v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App. '09), 118 S. W. 770; Dotson v. Millikin, 209 IT. S. 237; Rankin v. Grist, 129 S. W. 1147, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 484; Crum v. Blade & Bassett, 154 S. W. 351, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Cligg v. Meyer, 134 S. W. 386, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Young v. Whitaker, 150 P. 972, 46 Utah, 474; Hayden v. Ashley, 150 P. 1147, 86 Wash. 653; Speer v. Benedum Trees Oil Co., 86 A. 695, 239 Pa. 189; De Perow v. Groomes, 42 App. D. C. 287; Cunningham v. Friendly, 140 P. 989, 70 Or. 222, den. re. 139 P. 928, 70 Or. 222; Husak v. May-wald, 185 I11. App. 479; Bleiswess v. McCurdy, 180 P. 403, - Wash. Sup. -; Oban v. Ducharme, 106 A. 777, - Vt. Sup. -; Oregon Home Builders v. Montgomery Inv. Co., 184 P. 487, - Or. Sup. -; Harris v. Warmack, 101 S. E. 713, - Ga. App. -; Laird v. Elliott, 219 S. W. 499, - Tex. Civ. App. - . See also Sec. 536.

Where the owner of land authorized real estate agents to sell land purchased by him, and informed them that he had no deed for the same, but held it under a contract, and the agents made a contract for a sale of the land, but the purchaser refused to complete, because the vendor had only a contract of purchase, there being no other defect in the title, it was held that the agents were not entitled to recover the agreed commissions on the sale, as it proved abortive without any fault on the part of their principal. Hoyt v. Shipherd, 70 I11. 309. Compare Sec. 33.

Where a broker was employed to sell a whole tract of land, or a part thereof, and after negotiations the broker failed to make a sale, and an attempt was made to discharge him, but he continued his negotiations, subsequently the owner sold a portion of the tract to a person with whom the broker had prior negotiations; the owner was held liable to pay the broker a proportionate commission. Diamond v. Wheeler, 80 N. Y. S. 416, 80 App. Div. 58; Bogart v. McWilliams (Tex. Civ. App. '95), 31 S. W. 434.

A broker's contract for a commission on a sale of an entire tract of timber land; held, not to entitle him to a commission on a sale of a portion of the tract. Wilson v. Rafter, 174 S. W. 137, 188 Mo. App. 356.

Broker not entitled to a commission for sale of a part of a tract when employed to sell the whole. Martin v. Crumb, 142 N. Y. Sup. 1096, 158 App. Div. 228, rear. and app. to Ct. App. den., 143 N. Y. Sup. 1130, 158 App. Div. 939, judg. rev., I11 N. E. 62, 216 N. Y. 500.

A broker employed to procure a loan on real estate is not entitled to compensation merely because a lender was found who agreed to make the loan, subject to the conditions, "title, etc., being found ultimately satisfactory," but who declined to make the loan after an examination of defendant's title to the real estate. Chambers v. Ackley, 91 N. Y. S. 78; Gatling v. Central Spar Verein, 73 N. Y. S. 496, 67 App. D. 50.

An owner employed a broker to procure a purchaser for described real estate for a specified sum at a specified commission; the broker procured a third person to make an offer, which the owner accepted, and the two entered into a contract for an exchange of properties; the broker testified that the owner stated that if he could get a third person to agree to give a specified number of lots and a mortgage back of a specified sum the owner would pay a specified sum for commissions: the agreement for an exchange was not carried out because of a defect in the title of the third person, which the broker attempted to cure. Held, that the broker was not entitled to commissions, none being earned unless a transfer was made. Keating v. Healey, 147 Mich. 279, 110 N. W. 943, 13 D. L. N. 1035.

Plaintiff, employed to sell real estate, procured a purchaser who executed a contract to purchase, and plaintiff and the owner at the same time entered into a written agreement, which provided that plaintiff would accept $500 as a full commission, which amount should be paid from the first $500 received by the owner after the first $5,000 had been paid. The contract was never carried out because the owner could not give a good title. Held, that the agreement established a time before which the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation, and not a time beyond which he was not required to wait for it, so that he could not recover. Such agreement superceded the ordinary rule that a broker earns his commission when he has procured the execution of a valid agreement for sale. Clark v. Horsy (Mass. Sup.), 105 N, E. 222, 217 Mass. 485. Compare Secs. 460, 501, 1118. See also Sec. 503.

An owner employed a broker to procure a purchaser of his land; the broker procured a purchaser who contracted with the owner for the purchase; the purchaser was unable to pay the cash necessary to consummate the sale, and he depended on a third person with whom he had contracted to buy the property, and who was to furnish the cash to make the first payment; the sale was not made, and the owner cancelled the contract. Held, that it was not necessary for the broker, in order to recover his commissions, to prove that the purchaser was able, independently of the third person, to make the cash payment, and if the purchaser could have procured the money from the third person, and if the failure to complete the sale resulted from the fault of the owner, the commission was earned. Clark v. Wilson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 450, 91 S. W. 627. Compare Fox v. Demargo Land Co., 37 Colo. 203, 86 P. 344; Harmon v. Enright, 107 Mo. App. 560, 81 S. W. 1180; Butler v. Baker, 17 R. I. 582, 23 A. 1019.

A real estate agent executed, in duplicate, a contract of sale in excess of his authority and delivered one copy to the purchaser, and sent one to the principal with a request that the latter have his wife sign it; the purchaser had no knowledge that there was another copy of the contract, sending at different times to the agent various propositions for a modification of the contract; the principal knew that the purchaser and the agent were in communication, and the former was chargeable with knowledge that the terms of the contract exceeded the agent's authority. Held, that the principal's failure to communicate with the purchaser was not a ratification. Strong v. Ross, 33 Ind. App. 586, 71 N. E. 918. See also Sec. 618.

Broker who merely shows negotiations never ripening into a purchase, or an agreement to purchase, is not entitled to commissions. Stevenson v. Bannan, 84 A. 447, 235 Pa. 512.

Plaintiff, a real estate broker, was not entitled to a commission in procuring a sale of real estate to defendant, where plaintiff procured from the owner an offer to sell for $10,000, and he was authorized by defendant to offer $9,000, and thereafter a sale was consummated for $9,500, in a transaction with another broker in which plaintiff took no part. Gehm v. Stark, 187 I11. App. 185.

Broker not entitled to commission where another broker preceded him, and he did not have an exclusive agency, McFarland v. Howell, 143 N. W. 860, 162 Iowa, 110; Groskin v. Moore, 94 A. 1057, 249 Pa. 242.

Where a broker employed by executors to sell land brought a purchaser able and willing to take the property, but who refused to complete the contract on learning that there was a vendor's lien against the property, the broker, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation as to the title by the executors, is not entitled to recover compensation. Roberts v. Holland, 134 S. W. 810, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Under contract for payment of broker's commissions when payments were made by purchaser, which were never made to vendor; held, not liable because of extensions of time to purchaser, or because broker had no notice of such extensions. Prince v. Selby Smelting & Lead Co., 170 P. 1075, - Cal. App. - .

Plaintiff realty brokers, who had made with the owners of land a valid contract to sell it for a commission, can not recover in the total absence of testimony to show that they found or produced a purchaser at any price. Ewing v. Bond, 215 S. W. 934, - Ky. Ct. App. - .

When commissions are based on the amount "received" by the owner, a failure to sell the land, without fault of the owner, prevents recovery of any commissions. Lee v. Greenwood Agency Co., 86 S. 449, - Miss. Sup. - .