The introduction by a broker of a prospective purchaser to the principal held sufficient to establish a contract of employment. Carroll v. O'shea, 19 N. Y. S. 374. Introduction to the owner, followed by a sale, entitles the broker to commissions, although the sale is made for a less price and upon different terms. Henry v. Stewart, 185 I11. 448, 57 N. E. 190; Dean v. Archer, 103 I11. App. 455; Pete v. March, 65 I11. App. 482; Hafner v. Herron, 60 I11. App. 592, affirmed 165 I11. 242, 46 N. E. 211; Gibson v. Hunt (Iowa Sup. '03), 94 N. W. 277; Driesback v. Rollins, 39 Kan. 268, 18 P. 187; Schwartz v. Yearly, 31 Md. 270; French v. McKay, 181 Mass. 485, 63 N. E. 1068; Desmond v. Stebbins, 140 Mass. 339, 5 N. E. 150; Reishus-Reimer Land Co. v. Benner, 91 Minn. 401, 98 N. W. 186; Haug v. Raughan, 51 Minn. 558, 53 N. W. 874; Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 47 N. W. 452; Bailee v. McMaury, 113 Mo. App. 253, 88 S. W. 157; Vreeland v. Vetterlein, 33 N. J. L. 247; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378; Lloyd v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124; Goodwin v. Brennecke, 47 N. Y. S. 266, 21 App. Div. 138; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. 145; Baker v. Thomas, 31 N. Y. S. 993, 11 Misc. 112; Van Doren v. Jelleffe, 20 N. Y. S. 636, 1 Misc. 354; Turner v. Putnam, 13 N. Y. S. 567; Rousch v. Loeffler, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 806, 6 0. Cir. Dec. 760; Insloe v. Jones, Brightly (Pa.), 76; Haines v. Bigner, 9 Phila. (Pa.), 51; Smith v. Sharp (Ala. Sup. '09), 50 S. 381; Beogher v. Clark, 106 P. 39, 81 Kan. 250, 27 L. E. A. (N. S.) 198; Pnw. Trwst Co. v. Darrough, 78 N. E. 1030, 168 Ind. 29; Burdett v. Parish 172 S. W. 620, 185 Mo. App. 605; Ryan v. Walker, 169 P. 417, - Cal. App. -; Bdl. Car Wheel Co. v. Clink, 104 A. 357, - Md. Sup. - .

A broker is entitled to commissions, although he took no part in the negotiations, where a sale resulted from his introducing a customer to the owner; irrespective of the purchase price, and although the sale was made by the owner. Holland v. Howard, 105 Ala. 538, 17 S. 35; Snyder v. Fearer, 87 I11. App. 275; Keeler v. Grace, 27 I11. App. 427; Henderson v. Collins, 69 Iowa, 51, 28 N. W. 431; Jones v. Adler, 34 Md. 440; Delta, etc., Land Co. v. Wallace, 83 Miss. 656, 36 S. 263; Timberman v. Craddock, 70 Mo. 638; Crone v. Miss. Valley Trust Co., 85 Mo. App. 601; Bass v. Jacobs, 63 Mo. App. 393; Jones v. Berry, 37 Mo. App. 125; Nicholas v. Jones, 23 Neb. 813, 37 N. W. 679; Butler v. Kennard, 23 Neb. 357, 36 N. W. 579; Potvin v. Cur ran, 13 Neb. 302, 14 N. W. 400; Lloyd v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124; Gillen v. Wise, 14 Daly (N. Y.) 480, 15 N. Y. St. 367; Hanford v. Shafter, 4 Daly, 243; Ludlow v. Carman, 2 Hilt. (N, Y.) 107; O'Toole v. Tucker, 38 N. Y. S. 969, 16 Misc. 485, affirmed 40 N. Y. S. 695, 17 Misc. 554; Fidelity Ins. Co.'s Appeal, 161 Pa. St. 177, 28 A. 1079; Gibson's Est., 3 Pa. Dist. 147, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 241; Scott v. Clark, 3 S. D. 486, 54 N. W. 538; Royster v. Magaveny, 9 Lea (Term.) 148; Arrington v. Cary, 5 Baxt. (Tenn.), 609; Engelstein v. Barthalomae, 188 I11. App. 562; Hamilton v. Davison, 153 S. W. 277, 168 Mo. App. 620; Forbes v. Arizona Parral Mining Co., 135 P. 715, 15 Ariz. 30.

The broker who first introduced a prospective purchaser to the owner was held to be entitled to commissions on a sale made through another. Crone v. Miss. Valley Trust Co., 85 Mo. App. 601. A broker is not entitled to compensation for merely introducing a purchaser to the owner, in the absence of a contract of employment, unless his character as agent was known or disclosed at the time. Keener v. Harrod, 2 Md. 63. See also Sec. 68.

A real estate broker's contract is completed, and he is entitled to compensation, even though he is employed for the purpose of selling, when he has introduced a purchaser, and his principal chooses to waive that requirement and enters into an option contract. In such case the courts allow some compensation upon the basis of the amount paid. Mayhew v. Brislin, 108 P. 253, 13 Ariz. 102.

Where a sale was made to the person introduced, but at a price lower than that first suggested, because only a portion of the property was covered in the final transaction, it did not constitute a new deal brought about solely by the owner himself. Burger v. Cole, 194 P. 611, - Colo. Sup. - .