A modification of a written contract employing a broker to procure a purchaser of real estate for $5,000, at a commission of five per cent., by authorizing the broker to sell for $4,500, is material, and under Burns' Ann. Stat., 1908, Sec. 7463, providing that no contract for the payment of commissions for procuring a purchaser shall be valid unless the same is in writing, signed by the owner, an action does not lie on the altered contract unless the alteration is evidenced by a writing signed by the owner. Wellinger v. Crawford (Ind. App. '09), 89 N. E. 892.

Under a statute providing that any agreement authorizing a broker to sell or purchase real estate for commissions shall be void unless the agreement; or some memorandum thereof is in writing signed by the parties to be charged therewith, a memorandum which authorizes no broker, describes no real estate, contains no agreement for the payment of commissions, and is not signed by the parties, is insufficient. Swartswood v. Naslin (Wash. Sup. '10), 106 P. 770.

An agreement by a broker to give a purchaser of land his commissions is not within the statute of frauds. Spengeman v. Palestine Bdg. Ass'n, 60 N. J. L. 357, 37 A. 723. An agent who has invested his principal's money in land and taken the title in his own name, will not be allowed to set up the statute of frauds against the enforcement of the trust, on the ground that the agency was without written authority. Firestone V. Firestone, 49 Ala. 128; Lopsed v. Fritz, 91 N. Y. S. 5, 45 Misc. 620. A memorandum signed by the auctioneer selling real estate, describing the land sold and stating the terms of sale, binds both buyer and seller, and is a compliance with the statute of frauds. Garth v. Davis, 27 Ky. L. E. 505, 85 S. W. 692.

The full performance by the broker of an oral contract to sell land for another on commission, does not take the contract out of the statute of frauds. L. 0. L. Sec. 808; Taylor v. Peterson, 147 P. 520, 76 Or. 77; Lueddeman v. Rudolph, 155 P. 172, 79 Or. 249, den. re., 154 P. 116, 79 Or. 249.

If a broker procure a purchaser able and willing to purchase as agreed, the fact that the purchaser's contract with the owner was not enforceable under the statute of frauds would not prevent recovery of commissions. Allgood v. Fahrney, 146 N. W. 42, 164 Iowa, 540; Goldsberry v. Eades, 142 S. W. 1080, 161 Mo. App. 8.

Oral agreement for performing services connected with buying and selling realty to be compensated out of the profits of real estate when realized, especially where extending over an indefinite period of time, while not within the letter of the statute of frauds, is tainted with the evil at which it is aimed. Thompson v. Hurson, 167 N. W. 926, 201 Mich. 685.

Contract employing a broker to negotiate a sale of land to merely entitle him to a commission need not be in writing under the general statute of frauds, though it must be for him to execute a binding contract of sale. Vrablae v. Kacurek, 199 S. W. 876, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Eem. Code 1915, Sec. 5289, subd. 5, requiring contracts employing a broker to sell real estate to be in writing; held, not to apply where, at the time of employment to sell, employer had only an unaccepted option for the purpose of exclusive right to sell, and so was not owner. Moloney v. Montana Ranches Co., 170 P. 567, - Wash. Sup. - .

By Statute of Frauds, L. 0. L. Sec. 808, subd. 8, writing employing a broker to sell or exchange realty must state the amount of commission agreed to be paid. Oregon Home Builders v. Crowley, 170 P. 718, 87 Or. 517, re. den., 171 P. 214, 87 Or. 517.

Writing signed by owner employing corporation to procure an exchange reading, "and agree to pay as commission 2 1/2% of selling price off price for which property was sold, or at which it exchanged," satisfied statute of frauds, L. 0. L., Sec. 808, subd. 8, by expressing consideration. Id.

Where corporate realty broker effected an exchange of property, it converted employer's promise to pay commission into obligation to pay, and transferred into binding agreement satisfying the statute of frauds, L. 0. L., subd. 8, employer's written offer to pay for services. Id.

Correspondence held not to show a contract of employment of plaintiff by defendant, as his broker to sell land, within L. 0. L., Sec. 808, requiring written memorandum of such contract expressing the consideration. Gt. Western Land Co. v. Waite, 171 P. 193, 87 Or. 488, den. re., 168 P. 927, 87 Or. 488.

Under L. 0. L., Sec. 808, subd. 8, requiring broker's contract to buy or sell to state consideration, the consideration, while it must be expressed, need not be formally and precisely expressed, and is expressed if it appears by necessary inference. Oregon Home Builders v. Crowley, 171 P. 214, 87 Or. 517, den. re., 170 P. 718, 87 Or. 517.

A writing offered may constitute a sufficient memorandum of a broker's contract required by L. 0. L., Sec. 808, subd. 8, to charge the party making it, if it is later accepted by parol. Id.

Correspondence between realty brokers and officer of bank and sale by bankers; held, insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds as to contract for commissions. Larne v. Farmers & Mechanics Bank, 172 P. 1146, - Wash. Sup. - .

A contract to pay a broker commissions for procuring a purchaser of land, to be enforceable, must be wholly in writing, under Burns's Ann. Stat. 1914, Sec. 7463, a contract partly in writing and partly in parol being insufficient. Peters v. Martin, 122 N. E. 16, - Ind. App. - .

The provision of the statute of frauds that refers to oral agreements for the sale of interests in land does not affect an agent's right to compensation for selling land pursuant to oral instructions. Cool v. Smith, 80 S. 777, 119 Miss. 375.

The manifest purpose of Burns's Ann. Stat. 1914, Sec. 7463, relating to commissions of real estate agents, is to protect real estate owners against imposition and fraud, and not to enable such owners to work the same result against others, so that the operation of the statute should not be extended further than to make its spirit and purpose effective. Stockberger v. Zane, 125 N. E. 65, - Ind. App. - .

Broker's employment contract authorizing a broker "to sell the property hereinafter described, to-wit, 40 acres at Forrest, located in......, for the sum, etc." Held, not to entitle broker to recover commissions, on owner refusing to perform by selling property to procured purchaser, the description being insufficient under the statute of frauds. Big Four Land Co. v. Daracunas, 190 P. 229, - Wash. Sup. - .

Statute of frauds, Sec. 10, as amended by act, May 1, 1911 (P. L., p. 703), Sec. 1, declaring that no broker selling land for an owner shall be entitled to a commission for the sale unless authority for selling is in writing, signed by the owner, or is recognized in a writing or memorandum signed by the owner, whether or not such writing or memorandum be signed before or after the sale has been effected, is satisfied by a recital in the agreement of sale executed by the owner, but not delivered to the purchaser, that "K" is recognized as the broker negotiating the sale, and that party of the first part agrees to pay a specified commission." Kelly v. Demorest, I11 A. 273, - N. J. Sup. - .