(1) In an action by a real estate broker to recover commission, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that the defendant agreed in writing to pay a commission of 5% of the selling price, that the plaintiff furnished him with a buyer for his property, that in addition to the written, there was a verbal agreement made at the same time, that the plaintiff was only to receive hi? commission in the event of the buyer making final settlement, the same to be paid out of the moneys paid by the buyer to the defendant, and that the purchaser, whom plaintiff had produced, had refused to make final settlement, leaving the property still entirely in the ownership of the defendant. Lowenstein v. Mc-Peak, 48 Pa. Super. Ct. 280.

(2) The owner of property dealing with a real estate agent in a matter of exchange of properties, may rely upon representations by such agent as to the title to the property to be acquired, and may urge reliance upon such representations, if shown to be false, as a defense to an action for commissions, without showing that he exercised ordinary prudence. Howard v. Anderson, 162 I11. App. 256.

(3) The fact that the truth as to the broker's false representations as to the property to be received by the landowner, under a contract of exchange, could have been learned on inquiry, did not prevent them from being a defense to the broker's action for compensation, the client being entitled to rely on the broker's statements. Duncan v. Turner, 154 S. W. 816, 171 Mo. App. 661.

(4) Under Rev. Civ. Stat. 1911, Art. 1829, the issue of ratification of unauthorized terms of a broker's contract of sale held raised, in an action for commission, by the allegation of the answer that defendant refused to accept said terms, and to that extent repudiated the contract. Wilson v. Burch, 162 S. W. 1018, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(5) An answer to action by a broker for commissions for furnishing a purchaser, which denied each and every allegation of the petition, in specific terms, and alleged that it was agreed that if plaintiff produced a purchaser who would "purchase" and "pay" for the property at a certain price, then the defendant would pay plaintiff the sum of $5,000, "the difference between the price for which plaintiff was willing to sell and the price plaintiff represented the purchaser produced by him would pay therefor; held to allege a special contract and not to admit the contract of employment alleged in the petition, which was based on the general rule that a broker is entitled to compensation when he furnishes a purchaser ready, willing and able to perform. Murphy v. W. & W. Live Stock Co., 189 P. 857, - Wyo. Sup. - .

(6) In an action for a real estate broker's commission, an answer admitting the listing of the property with plaintiff to find a purchaser, and alleging that defendant, before notice by plaintiff that he had found a purchaser, had sold the property to another, was not demurrable as failing to state a defense. Haggart v. King, 190 P. 763, - Kan. Sup. - .