If in negotiating a contract in behalf of the principal the broker is guilty of fraud as to the other contracting party, he is liable to him therefor in damages. Kice v. Porter, 21 Ky. L. E. 871, 53 S. W. 285, 22 Ky. L. E. 1704, 61 S. W. 266; Todd v. Bourke, 27 La. Ann. 385; Hardacre v. Stewart, 5 Esp. (Eng.) 103; Baker v. Brown, 82 Cal. 64, 22 P. 879; Hussey v. Michael, 138 P. 596, 91 Kan. 542; Hokcanson v. Oatman, 131 N. W. I11,

165 Mich. 512, 35 L. E. A. (N. S.), 423; Each v. Grain, 177 S. W. 587, - Mo. Sup. -; Carsin v. Schoenfeld, 166 N. W. 23,

166 Wis. 401, L. E. A. 1918 C, 162.

If a broker employed to sell property which is subject to incumbrances misrepresents or conceals the fact that the property is incumbered, he is liable to the purchaser in damages. Riley v. Bell, 120 Iowa, 618, 95 N. W. 170; Chisholm v. Gadsden, 1 Strob. (S. C.) 220; Arnot v. Biscoe, 1 Ves. 95 (Eng.) 27 Eng. Rep. Reprint 914.

Where an agent for the sale of a mining property represented to a purchaser that he was to receive a certain commission on the sale from the owners, when in fact he was paid five times that amount, the price paid by the purchaser should be abated in the amount of the difference between the commission received and the one specified. Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ari. 103, 53 P. 590.

An agent having authority to sell both real and personal property for a certain sum can not, without the consent of his principal, take over to himself the personal property on receiving the sum for the real estate. Northup v. Bathrick, 80 Neb. 36, 113 N. W. 808. Where agents for the sale of land concealed from the purchasers the fact that they were part owners of the land, but instead, expressed an intention to purchase an interest themselves upon the same terms as they were selling to the purchasers, such representations constituted such a fraud as would avoid the purchase. Wren v. Moncure, 95 Va. 369, 28 S. E. 588.

Where land stood in the name of a third party, the real owner procured a broker to sell the land who made false representations as to its value; the nominal owner of the land had title to a bond and mortgage given in part payment of the price. Held, that the fraud of the real owner and the broker was imputable to the person in whose name they acted. Fairchild v. McMahon, 139 N. Y. 290, 34 N. E. 779, affirming 20 N. Y. S. 31, 65 Hun, 621. See also Secs. 99, 313, 314, 316.

Where land was sold by a broker who made representations to induce defendant to purchase, which were known to the broker to be false, but were relied upon by defendant to his injury, plaintiff, availing himself of the benefits of the transaction, is bound by the representations, whether the broker was his appointed agent or not. Williamson v. Tyson, 105 Ala. 644, 17 S. 336; Copeland v. Tweedle, 122 P. 302, 61 Or. 303; Perkins v. Or-field, 176 N. W. 157, - Minn. Sup. - . See also Secs. 99, 313, 314, 316.

The fact that one who was employed by the owner to procure a purchaser of realty violated in so doing his contract of employment with a third person engaged in the realty business, did not defeat his right to recover his commission from the owner on procuring a purchaser. Pomarici v. Roseriblum, 120 N. Y. Sup. 756.

The rule of caveat emptor does not apply where a broker authorized to sell land for $900 tells the customer, unacquainted with land values, that he has induced the owner to reduce the price from $1,500 to $1,200, and that at the latter price it is a bargain, and that the owner will not accept less. Hokanson v. Oatman, 131 N. W. I11, 165 Mich. 512, 35 L. E. A. (N. S.), 423.

A broker who, being authorized to sell land for $900 and to have a commission therefor, tells a customer who, to his knowledge, is ignorant of land values, that he has induced the owner to reduce the price from $1,500 to $1,200, and that at the latter price it is a bargain, and that the owner will not take less, whereby he induced a purchase, he pocketing the extra $300, is guilty of fraud and deceit, making him liable for the extra amount to the purchaser. Id.

A buyer of real estate can not recover from brokers for misrepresentation as to the amount of their commissions, and the lowest price the seller would take, though the brokers, by the misrepresentation, made a large profit at the expense of their principal, no damages resulting to plaintiff. McLennan v. Inv. Exc. Co., 156 S. W. 730, 170 Mo. App. 389.

Landowners who employed a broker to procure a purchaser, held, not bound by his misrepresentations to defendants, with whom he entered into an agreement to jointly purchase the land, such misrepresentation not being made within the agency. Leg-gett v. Moore, 154 N. W. 804, 36 S. D. 288.

Misrepresentations as to the character of land are within the duties of an agent employed merely to find a purchaser, with no authority to sell or exchange, and are binding on the principal. Martin v. Ince, 148 S. W. 1178, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Where a prospective purchaser of land agreed to pay $7,040, and executed a contract with certain brokers to hold it, and induced them, for a commission, to accept a money offer of $5,000, concealing the contract, such purchaser was a party to the fraud, and could not recover against the brokers who purchased of another for $5,000, and sold to the purchaser for $7,040, to recover the difference from them. Jines v. Astle, 170 S. W. 1081, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

A contract employing an agent to sell land, and reciting that no misrepresentation of the agent shall be relied on by the purchasers, does not relieve the principal from liability to a purchaser executing a contract containing such a stipulation for the fraud of the agent inducing the purchase. Shepard v. Pabst, 135 R. W. 158, 149 Wis. 35.

An action for fraud in an exchange of lands will not lie against owners of land, where they merely listed it with the broker for sale or exchange, and where he made fraudulent statements, relied upon, without owners' knowledge or approval. Dellwo v. Peterson, 180 P. 167, - Idaho Sup. - .

Where a real estate broker acts for two parties with adverse interests in effecting exchange of lands, with the knowledge and consent of both, neither principal is liable to the other for the broker's tortious acts, without collusion or direct participation of one of the principals. Ringer v. Winkins, 183 P. 986, - Idaho Sup. - .