An owner employed a broker to procure a purchaser for described real estate for a specified sum at a stated 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 property; 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 the 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. Haley, 147 Mich. 279, 110 N. W. 943; 13 D. L. N. 1035; Osborn v. Addington, 138 P. 603, 91 Kan. 586; Cheatham & Haney v. Dansby, 159 S. W. 385, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Stanford v. Willie, Carpenter & McClelland, 178 S. W. 991, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Britton v. Eagan, 196 S. W. 972, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Appleby v. Dysinger, 163 N. W. 739, 137 Minn. 382; Houghton v. Kuchurench, 189 P. 457, - Cal. App. - . See also Secs. 119, 224, 272, 449.