(1) Where, in an action by a broker for commissions, the owner of the land denied making any contract with the broker, the testimony of a third person that he had an offer at about the time of the making of the alleged contract with the broker to purchase from the owner on more favorable terms, was incompetent, in the absence of an attack on the credibility of the owner. Kelly & Grady v. Davis, 138 S. W. 1186, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(2) Under Civil Code, Sec. 1624, requiring a contract of employment to sell land to be in writing and describing the land, where, construed as a whole, the letters claimed to constitute such a hiring, held, manifestly referred only to sales of the "T" tract, parol evidence that the employers, when using in one of them the phrase, "a fair compensation for the sale of lands, which we will now take up vigorously," had in mind and intended to describe and designate the "P" tract, inadmissible. Pronix v. Sacramento Valley Land Co., 126 P. 509, 19 Cal. App. 529.

(3) In an action by a broker for damages for failure of defendant to carry out a contract of exchange of real estate, so as to prevent the broker from recovering a commission from the other party to the exchange, evidence of the invalidity of the contract was inadmissible under a pleading recognizing its validity, and alleging the refusal of defendant to carry it out, without legal excuse. Bird v. Rowell, 167 S. W. 1172, 180 Mo. App. 421.

(4) In an action for commissions for purchase of realty, where the averment of the plaintiff was that plaintiff was employed by the owner to procure a sale, and that defendant agreed that if plaintiff gave him information as to property defendant desired to purchase, he would purchase only through plaintiff as broker, so as to enable him to earn a commission from the seller, but that defendant bought, without informing the seller that plaintiff brought about the sale, so as to cause him to lose a commission from the seller, evidence that defendant's agreement was, that if plaintiff should not receive a commission from the seller on property purchased by defendant, the latter would pay it, went to establish an entirely different contract, and was not admissible. Silvert v. Kemmel, 122 N. Y. Sup. 846, 138 App. Div. 229.

(5) Where it was not pleaded that the commission was to be paid out of the first crop, evidence that the first crop was a failure; held, properly excluded. Price v. Partridge, 139 P. 34, 78 Wash. 362.

(6) In an action by broker for commissions for procuring a purchaser pursuant to a contract, evidence of what the broker had done under a prior contract with another person, held incompetent. Moore v. Moss, 175 S. W. 1195, 117 Ark. 593.

(7) In an action to recover a broker's compensation, evidence offered by defendant as to the amount she had expended to perfect the title and to pay interest on mortgage; held incompetent, where the written agreement between the parties provided that defendant should bear these expenses. Watson v. Vollentine, 183 I11. App. 559.

(8) In an action for procuring Z. as purchaser of property, evidence by the attorney who prepared the contract of sale to Z. that another was substituted as seller instead of the original owner, for whom plaintiff acted, in order to avoid two commissions out of it, so the other fellow could not go in for a commission; held inadmissible. Boomer v. Stuber, 145 N. W. 936, 164 Iowa, 309.

(9) Defendant may not show a contract he made with another broker for the sale of defendant's farm, as evidence that his contract with plaintiff was like it, and not as claimed by plaintiff. Stoner v. Nail, 150 S. W. 648, 150 Ky. 511, mod. opin. on re., 148 S. W. 8, 149 Ky. 124.

(10) In an action by brokers for commission, on the theory that, under their contract, they were entitled to it though the sale was made by the owner, evidence of efforts made by them to sell and expenses incurred by them in so doing, is inadmissible. Bomar v. Munn, 158 S. W. 1186, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(11) In a broker's action for compensation, evidence of the purchaser's statement that the broker had abandoned any effort to sell to him and purposely negotiated directly with the owner; held, inadmissible to show the owners could have sold. White v. Holman, 180 S. W. 286, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(12) Evidence that sometime after defendant listed property with plaintiffs for sale a third party authorized plaintiffs vice-president to sell for a certain price, and to have all over that price as commission; held, erroneously admitted. Cardozo v. Middle Atlantic Em. Co., 82 S. E. 80, 116 Va. 342.

(13) In a broker's action for commission, defendant's testimony that he made the sale because in need of money was properly excluded. Parks v. Sullivan, 152 S. W. 704, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

(14) Where the solvency of the purchasers procured by plaintiff was not in issue, and the defendant owner by accepting them and signing the contract waived any objections to their solvency, evidence that they did not return any property for taxation was properly excluded as immaterial. Swift v. Moore, 82 S. E. 914, 15 Ga. App. 254.

(15) In a broker's action for commission for procuring a tenant, in which the complaint alleged that the plaintiff procured a tenant able and willing to carry out his agreement, and erect a twelve-story building, evidence of negotiations by the prospective tenant for the erection of a 15 1/2 or 16-story building was not admissible. Herron v. Cameron, 128 N. Y. Sup. 871, 144 App. Div. 43.

(16) In an action for brokerage commission, rejection of evidence of the actual value of the property taken by defendant in exchange; held, not error, where the parties put a value on the property in making the trade. Waddell v. Noser, 188 I11. App. 302.

(17) What plaintiff said in regard to the farm before his employment to sell it is inadmissible. Stoner v. Nall, 150 S. W. 648, 150 Ky. 511, mod. opin. on re., 148 S. W. 8, 149 Ky. 124.

(18. Testimony of the principal that sometime after the date of the alleged binding agreement between himself and the customers procured by the broker, he had made a proposition to a third person which was less favorable to him than the one which it was claimed he had declined to make or had voided when made, was not competent against the broker. Hutchinson v. Plant, 105 N. E. 1017, 218 Mass. 148.

(19) In an action to recover for services in securing a tenant for hotel property and in procuring a bond from such tenant to secure the payment of the rent, evidence offered by defendant tending to show that after the lease was procured plaintiff loaned the tenant money to inaugurate and carry on his business, was properly excluded, as it related to a matter arising after the execution of the lease and the completion of the contract involved in the action. Ruiz v. Obear, 115 P. 67, 15 Cal. App. 435.

(20) On an issue as to the amount contracted to be paid for commission for the sale of land, each party testified to a different agreement, but differing as to the amount, evidence that a third party, at some indefinite time, had an agreement for a commission, charged less than that claimed by one party and greater than that claimed by the other, is inadmissible. McVey v. Coates, 130 P. 661, 89 Kan. 135.

(21) In broker's action for commission, evidence to show that defendant sought to vary the terms of written agreement between the parties, by making it applicable only to sell to railroad, was not admissible. Freeman v. Van Wageman, 101 A. 55, - N. J. Sup. - .

(22) In an action by a broker for commissions, evidence that the officers of the purchaser and the seller of the property were not on speaking terms, and that an officer of the purchaser, in talking with the seller about the purchase, pocketed a slip of paper with the price of the property marked thereon, which the broker had received from the seller and had given to one officer of the purchaser, was given by the officer to another officer of the purchaser; held inadmissible. Jester v. Lee, 200 I11. App. 183.

(23) Where, in action for defendant's breach of contract made through a broker, defendant was estopped to deny authority of broker, evidence tending to discredit broker's authority was improperly received. Portsmouth Oil Refining Co. v. Madrid Cotton Oil Co., 77 S. 8, - Ala. Sup. - .

(24) Correspondence between loan broker and mortgagee who had paid the amount of the mortgage to broker, when he did not have possession of mortgage, but had transferred it to his undisclosed principal; held, inadmissible to show he was a broker and the undisclosed principal. Bailey v. Walters, 202 I11. App. 422.

(25) In a broker's action for commission on sale of a farm, where defendant owner did not claim that certain other brokers had anything to do with the sale, testimony of one of such brokers as to whether or not he had had the farm in question for sale, and whether he had had it on conditions, and with knowledge that another broker also had it for sale; held, inadmissible to show no exclusive agency was given plaintiff broker. Thomas v. Wychoff, 174 N. W. 26, - Iowa Sup. - .

(26) In a broker's action for commission, evidence of transaction between purchaser and prospective purchaser whom the broker had previously introduced to owner, was inadmissible to prove purchaser was procured by broker. Low v. Peddoch, 220 S. W. 969, - Mo. App. -