Where two or more brokers are employed, ordinarily the first who succeeds in actually producing a purchaser and consummating a sale is entitled to full commissions. Whewell v.

McLernon Realty & Const. Co., 120 ST. Y. S. 72; Daniels v. Columbia H. Land Co., 9 App. Cas. (D. C), 483; O'Toole v. Dolan, 129 Cal. 471, 62 P. 30; Glenn v. Davidson, 37 Md. 365; McCan v. Bailey, 60 Mo. App. 456; Jennings v. Trummer, 52 Ore. 149; 96 P. 874; Glasscock v. Vanfleet, 100 Tenn. 603, 46 S. W. 449; Yarborough v. Creager (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 77 S. W. 645; Osier v. Moore, 8 Brit. Col. 115; Frinck v. Gilbert (Wash. Sup. '09), 101 P. 1088; Horton & Co. v. Beall, 171 S. W. 894, 116 Ark. 273; Idelson v. Robinson, 150 P. 322, 27 Colo. App. 507; Thorpe v. Cameron-Schroth Co., 191 I11. App. 455; Hieronymus v. Atterbury, 137 S. W. 617, 156 Mo. App. 612; Bellis v. Hann & Kendall, 157 S. W. 427, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Hennings v. Parsons, 61 S. E. 866, 108 Va. 1, 15 Ann. Cas. 765; Dalke v. Sivyer, 105 P. 1031, 56 Wash. 462, 27 L. E. A. (N. S.), 195; Starks v. Springgate, 167 1ST. W. 221, L. R. A. 1918 D, 728. Compare Sec. 454.

Where several brokers attempted to secure a loan for defendant, who, in good faith, paid the broker who produced the party making the loan, defendant was not liable to others, and was not required to make inquiry as to which broker was the procuring cause of effecting it. Brooks v. Geo. Q. Cannon Ass'n, 178 P. 589, - Utah Sup. - .

In some jurisdictions the first broker who brings the parties together and induces the seller and the purchaser to enter into the contract, is entitled to the commission. Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209, 58 S. W. 580, 22 Ky. L. R. 702; Baker v. Thomas, 33 N. Y. S. 613, 12 Misc. 432; De Zavola v. Rozaliner, 84 N. Y. S. 969. Dalke v. Siryer (Wash. Sup. '09), 105 P. 1031. See Sec. 608.

Where property is placed with several brokers, the first who procures a contract of sale and obtains part payment of the purchase money, is entitled to the commission. Eggleston v. Austin, 27 Kan. 245; Stewart v. Woodward, 7 Kan. App. 633, 53 P. 148; O'Toole v. Dolan, 129 Cal. 471, 62 P. 30; Livezy v. Miller, 61 Md. 336; McCann v. Bailey, 60 Mo. App. 456; Yarborough v. Creager (Tex. Civ. App. '03), 77 S. W. 645; Bray v. Chandler, 18 C. B. (Eng.), 718, 86 E. C. L. 718; Murray v. Curry, 7 C. & P. (Eng.), 584, 32 E. C. L. 771. Compare Sec. 608.

Where property is placed with a real estate agent for sale and a sale is brought about through his agency, he is entitled to his commissions, even though the first negotiations are conducted without his knowledge, and the owner, in order to make the sale is compelled to vary the original price and terms. Barton v. Rogers, 84 I11. App. 49; McGuire v. Carlam, 61 I11. App. 295; Jenks v. Nobles, 42 I11. App. 33; Bowling v. MerriK 165 Mass. 491, 43 N. E. 295; Smith v. Truitt, 107 Mo. App. 1, 80 S. W. 686; Hogan v. Slade, 98 Mo. App. 44, 71 S. W. 1104; Wright v. Brown, 68 Mo. App. 577; Brennan v. Roach, 47 Mo. App. 290; Gibson's Est., 3 Pa. Dist. 147, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 241; Shipman v. Frech, 1 N. Y. S. 67.

Where the purchaser begins negotiations for the purchase of certain property through an agent and completes through other agents by direct negotiations, without the knowledge of the first broker, can not deprive the latter of his right to commissions. Crowe v. Miss. Valley Trust Co., 85 Mo. App. 601. See also Sec. 454.

A broker authorized to purchase, who made active efforts, but another first procured a satisfactory offer, the first broker was not entitled to a commission. Freeman v. Polstein, 97 N. Y. S. 1032, 49 Misc. 644. Compare Sec. 454.

One who does not himself produce the purchaser, but who introduces to the seller, as a prospective purchaser, one who, acting under an independent brokerage arrangement with the owner, makes a sale, the first broker is not entitled to commissions. Peek v. Slifer, 122 I11. App. 21; Latshaw v. Moore, 53 Kan. 234. Compare Sec. 454.

Where a broker having property for sale called the attention of another broker thereto, and he sold, the first was not entitled to a commission. Shapiro v. Shapiro, 103 N. Y. S. 305, 117 App. Div. 817; Brannen v. Pool, 218 S. W. 186, - Ark Sup. - .

A sale made by the second agent to a client of the first, but at a lower price, did not entitle the first to a commission. Ames v. Cameron, 19 D. C. 435; Mears v. Stone, 44 I11. App. 444; Wolff v. Rosenberg, 67 Mo. App. 403; Friedman v. Havemeyer, 56 N. Y. S. 97, 37 App. Div. 518; Felman v. O'Brien, 51 N. Y. S. 309, 23 Misc. 341; Powell v. Anderson, 15 Daly (N. Y.), 219,

4 N. Y. S. 706; Hendricks v. Daniels, 19 N. Y. S. 414; Powell v. Lamb, 1 N. Y. S. 431; Byers v. Williams, 141 N. W. 571, 175 Mich. 385. Compare Sec. 454.

Defendant listed land with plaintiff and other brokers for sale. Plaintiff communicated an "offer" which defendant accepted by wire, but immediately rescinded on receiving a telegram from the other brokers stating that they had "sold" the land. Held, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Hieronymus v. Atterbury, 137 S. W. 617, 156 Mo. App. 612.

Defendant having employed two brokers, and they being engaged in a common effort to sell the property to the same person, could not rightly interfere to prevent the consummation of sale by one in order to favor the other, although he could render assistance by accompanying brokers upon inspection of property, boosting the sale by commendation. Lumsden v. Jones, 205 S. W. 375, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

It is the broker who first produces a customer, and is the procuring cause of the sale, who is entitled to the commission, although the actual sale is made by another broker. Millage v. Irwin, 187 P. 525, - Colo. Sup. - .

A broker with whom land was listed at $29 net was entitled to commission where he was the cause of the purchaser from another place coming to look at the land and introducing the purchaser to the owner who, at the broker's request, priced the land at 30 an acre to the purchaser, although the sale was made by another broker at $28.50 per acre, with whom the land had been listed at 28, there being no evidence to show that the buyer would not have purchased at $30 if it had not been for the second broker. Id.