adventurers in the conduct of the litigation for closing his lien as a chattel_mortgage.—Willys a common client, so that they were entitled, in Overland Co. v. Evans, 180 P. 235. any event, to share equally in compensation.-21 (Cal.App.) Where furniture was either Ford v. Freeman, 180 P. 545. sold conditionally by an outfitting company to 166(1) (Cal.App.) In action between four the lessee of a hotel, or else was leased by it attorneys involving their rights to share equally in contingent fee, held under the undisputed evidence that plaintiff, cross-complainant, and defendants were associated together as attorneys of record for one client from the inception of his action until the termination thereof, and that each performed such services as were required of him.-Ford v. Freeman, 180 P. 545.

423(1) (Cal.App.) A judgment entered by consent on a complaint alleging that plaintiff as undisclosed principal paid defendant a certain sum for an interest in a land speculation, which was uncompleted because the land was obtaining property by "false representations," not conveyed to defendant, is not a liability for A bail bond in a sum greater than the ordered in 1903 (U. S. Comp. St. § 9601), and is barwithin Bankruptcy Act, § 17, subd. 2, as amendof the court is absolutely void.-Id. 93 (Cal.App.) In view of Pen. Code, gred by the discharge in bankruptcy.-Bowman 1278, where a bail bond is defective and void v. Provident Realty Inv. Co., 180 P. 18.

44 (Colo.) Notwithstanding Rev. St. 1908, 18(2) (Kan.) Where a garage man at in- § 272, providing that stockholders shall be perstance of another than original purchaser re-sonally liable for debts contracted while they paired an automobile subject to foreign lien are stockholders, when a bank becomes insolvof a chattel mortgage, his failure to record his ent the double liability imposed by section 273 claim for lien did not impair his right to retain is not confined to debts contracted during the

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

since section 273 provides the remedy for creditors in the event of the failure and insolvency of a bank.-Bundy v. Wilson, 180 P. 740.

48(2) (Colo.) In action by receiver of insolvent bank to enforce shareholder's liability under Rev. St. 1908, § 273, questions as to alleged fraud inducing the purchase of the stock by defendant and the right of the seller to sell the stock to defendant are extraneous and immaterial; liability depending only on whether defendant was a stockholder of record.-Bundy v. Wilson, 180 P. 740.

tent to release the bank.-Epley v. Citizens' State Bank of Mullinville, 180 P. 187.

154(9) (Kan.) In a depositor's action against a bank to recover deposit claimed to have been loaned by him to the cashier individually, and for which a note secured by mortgage was subsequently given, whether the equity of redemption was assets of the deceased mortgagor, so as to be liable for his debts, held not a subject for determination.Epley v. Citizens' State Bank of Mullinville, 180 P. 187.

VI. LOAN, TRUST, AND INVESTMENT
COMPANIES.

A bank stockholder of record cannot urge as a defense to enforcement of his stockholder's iability that he was induced to purchase the stock by fraud, where he acknowledged he was a stockholder even after the bank had been closed by the State Bank Commissioner, and actively engaged in efforts with others to salvage the institution, attending at least one stockholders' meeting, and did not seek to rescind his contract of purchase until it was demonstrated the bank was hopelessly insol-pany to carry out such a transaction.-Comvent and a receiver was appointed.-Id.

III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. (B) Representation of Bank by Officers and Agents.

315(1) (Colo.) Bank Act, prohibiting banks from purchasing stock of other corporations, does not render ultra vires the purchase, for a customer, of stock in another corporation, by a bank and trust company; it being authorized by its articles of incorporation as a trust commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Beach, 180 P. 982.

315(2) (Colo.) Where plaintiff bank and trust company, through its cashier, purchased corporate stock for defendant for $1,500, taking his note for $3,000, balance to be placed to 106 (Cal.App.) If depositor hands note to defendant's credit and the cashier fraudulentcashier, with instructions to charge it to his ly represented to defendant that the stock cost personal account and credit proceeds to ac-$3,000, and the bank retained the benefit of count of corporation of which he is president, the fraud, it was liable therefor.-Commercial and cashier charges note to personal account, Bank & Trust Co. v. Beach, 180 P. 982. and abstracts proceeds without crediting them to corporation's account, the loss falls upon bank, and not depositor.-National Bank of San Mateo v. Whitney, 180 P. 845.

If a merchant sends his bookkeeper to bank with check to be deposited and bookkeeper delivers check to bank's teller, with instruction to deposit proceeds to merchant's account, and teller destroys deposit slip and treats check as cash transaction, abstracting money, and not crediting deposit to account of merchant, it is bank's loss, not merchant's.-Id.

Where depositor left blank note with bank cashier, with instructions to fill in note and charge it to his personal account, and credit proceeds to account of corporation, of which he was president, the cashier in abstracting proceeds of note after having filled in and charged note to depositor's personal account, without crediting proceeds to corporation's account, was not depositor's agent in abstracting the money, nor in receiving it as a thief.-Id.

(C) Deposits.

119 (Kan.) A bank cannot be regarded as a trustee of a general depositor; the relation existing being that of debtor and creditor.-Epley v. Citizens' State Bank of Mullinville, 180 P. 187.

130(3) (Cal.App.) A bank having no previous dealings with a corporation and being unacquainted with its officers or their powers was not warranted in accepting a check payable to the order of such corporation bearing indorsement only of payee's name by its secretary and after collecting the check place the amount to the credit of the person presenting it, without inquiry as to his authority, and permitting him to withdraw the proceeds.-Buena Vista Oil Co. v. Park Bank of Los Angeles, 180 P. 12.

BASTARDS.

I. ILLEGITIMACY IN GENERAL.

6 (Cal.) Evidence held insufficient to establish the essential element of adoption of illegitimate child by its father under Civ. Code, § 230, or under statutes in force prior to its enactment. In re Palomares' Estate, 180 P. 936.

13 (Cal.) Civ. Code, § 230, as to adoption of illegitimate child by its father, does not apply to acts of adoption which occurred before its enactment.-In re Palomares' Estate, 180 P. 936.

III. PROCEEDINGS UNDER BAS-
TARDY LAWS.

63 (Kan.) In a bastardy proceeding, where the child was 32 months old at time of trial, its appearance and resemblance to defendant should not be considered in determining its paternity.-State v. Lyons, 180 P. 802.

71 (Kan.) On evidence in a bastardy proceeding as to date of intercourse, held, that it was not error to refuse an instruction that the period of gestation is 280 days; that the intercourse must have occurred on a certain date.-State v. Lyons, 180 P. 802.

On facts appearing in a bastardy proceeding. it was not error to refuse to instruct that, if defendant had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was somewhere else on the date fixed by relatrix, the verdict must be in his favor.-Id.

On facts appearing in a bastardy proceeding. it was not error to refuse instruction that, if jury should find the evidence equally balanced on question of defendant's paternity, they should find in his favor.-Id.

Where bank received a check payable to a corporation, with the unauthorized indorsement of its secretary, the corporation's title to the proceeds did not pass to the bank when the bank collected the amount, but it became liable for money had and received to the corpora--State v. Lyons, 180 P. 802. tion's use. Id.

92 (Kan.) Record on appeal in bastardy proceeding held not to sustain defendant's contention that he was denied an opportunity to show an ulterior motive actuating relatrix in charging him with the paternity of her child.

Defendant in bastardy proceeding was not 154(8) (Kan.) In a depositor's action prejudiced by failure to sustain an objection to against a bank to recover a deposit, evidence certain remarks of state counsel in closing arheld to support a finding that depositor had gument as to resemblance between the child loaned his money on deposit to cashier in- in court and defendant, where court reviewed dividually, taking his personal note with in-remarks on motion for a new trial, as it would

be presumed that it thought there was no prej-196 (Cal.) Original debt of company to bank udice.-Id.

Where defendant in a bastardy proceeding was under 17 at time of trial, but made no request for the appointment of a guardian ad litem and was represented by able counsel, and where his parents were present in court, there was no reversible error in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem.-Id.

BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS.

See Insurance, 755-763.

BILLS AND NOTES.

is sufficient consideration for accommodation indorsement,, before delivery, by company's officers and stockholders, of company's note to bank in satisfaction of prior obligations.-Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P. 613.

III. MODIFICATION, RENEWAL, AND

RESCISSION.

139(3) (Cal.App.) Where time in which to pay original indebtedness contracted by husband and secured by mortgage on property subsequently deeded by him to his wife was extended from time to time, there was a sufficient consideration to support husband's promise upon new note.-Smith v. Hernan, 180 P. 640. IV. NEGOTIABILITY AND TRANSFER. (B) Transfer by Indorsement.

See Appeal and Error, 1042, 1071; Assignments, 20; Attachment, 47: Bankruptcy. 165, 303; Banks and Banking. 106, 130, 154, 315; Brokers, 56; Cancellation of Instruments, 37; Corporations, 34, 189; Estoppel, 72; Evi-183 (Kan.) A note may be negotiated by an dence, 314. 461; Executors and Admin- indorsement written upon any part of the inistrators, 225: False Pretenses, 49; strument, in view of Gen. St. 1915, § 6558.Forgery, 12, 28, 47, 48; Fraud, 25 E. D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, Guaranty, 4, 16; Habeas Corpus, ~30; 180 P. 264. Husband and Wife, 171; Indemnity, 191 (Kan.) An assignment by a holder of a 1; Interest, 37; Judgment, 43; Lim-negotiable note written on the back thereof itation of Actions, 40, 49, 148, 155; Part- without limitation, to which a guaranty of paynership, 55, 213; Mechanics' Liens, ment is added, is a commercial indorsement.239; Mortgages, 25, 28, 414, 464; Plead- D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, ing, 369; Pledges, 20; Principal and 180 P. 264. Agent, 116, 194; Set-Off and Counterclaim, 41; Subrogation, 31; Vendor and Purchaser, 85, 87.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (C) Execution and Delivery.

63 (Cal.App.) There is no legal delivery of note to bank by bank's customer until the bank or some one acting for it takes affirmative action, such as orally consenting to advance money represented by note, or entering note on books of bank, and transferring proper credit, or some other act, since bank does not accept delivery until such affirmative act.-National Bank of San Mateo v. Whitney, 180 P. 845. 64 (Cal.App.) If conditions prescribed by maker of note are fraudulently disregarded hy the discounting bank or its agent, there is no delivery binding the maker; meeting of the minds.-National Bank of San there being no Mateo v. Whitney, 180 P. 845.

(E) Consideration.

90 (Cal.App.) Where depositor left note signed in blank with bank cashier, with directions to fill in note, and charge to his personal account and credit to account of corporation of which he was president, and cashier upon filling in note and charging to depositor's personal account abstracted proceeds without crediting corporation's account, depositor was not liable on note; there being no consideration for note and no delivery thereof to bank.-National Bank of San Mateo v. Whitney, 180 P. 845.

92(1) (Cal.App.) Where bank customer's note was charged to his account by cashier, who, instead of crediting proceeds, pursuant to directions, to account of corporation of which depositor was president, filed note with bank papers and abstracted proceeds from bank's funds, depositor was not liable on note, under Civ. Code, § 1605, as being supported by a consideration because of prejudice suffered by bank; for such prejudice was by reason of the theft, and not by reason of the note. National Bank of San Mateo v. Whitney, 180 P. 845.

92(1) (Kan.) Under Gen. St. 1915, § 2040, a promissory note imports a consideration.-In re Hoover's Estate, 180 P. 275.

94(1) (Kan.) Under the express provisions of Gen. St. 1915, § 6552. a pre-existing debt is sufficient consideration for a promissory note. -E. D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, 180 P. 264.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON IN-
DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER.

(A) Indorsement Before Delivery to or
Transfer by Payee.

223 (Cal.) An indorsement is a written contract, the effect of which the law declares.Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P. 613.

266 (Cal.) Any of joint accommodation indorsers of note paying more than his share has right of contribution from the others.-Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P. 613.

other indorser thereof for contribution held to Complaint by one indorser of note against ansufficiently allege a joint indorsement, it setting forth a company's note with names indorsed on the back, under agreement, made in the singular number, waiving presentment, etc.; and alleging the three indorsers signed such agreement.—Id. the company executed the note, and that at the same time and as part of the same transaction

(B) Indorsement for Trausfer.

294 (Kan.) Where a payee in transferring a note writes his name on its face and under that of the maker, it will be implied that he signed it as an indorser and not as a maker.E. D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, 180 P. 264.

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.

330 (Kan.) The transferee of a negotiable instrument indorsed by the payee by writing his name under that of the maker before maturity and without notice of infirmities or defenses is a holder in due course.-E. D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, 180 P. 264.

351 (Utah) Although note purchased by plaintiff was overdue at time of purchase, so that he was not a holder in due course, in action on the note he could not be required to account for stock given to secure it, where he never had the stock in his possession, and did not know of its existence.-Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Stoutt, 180 P. 182.

362 (Kan.) Whenever a negotiable note passes into the hands of the holder in due course, its status as commercial paper is established, and such holder may transfer it to others, even after maturity, with immunity from the equities that may exist between maker and payee.-E. D. Fisher Lumber & Coal Co. v. Robbins, 180 P. 264.

370 (Kan.) A promissory note in the hands

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same tople and KEY-NUMBER

issued for a valuable consideration, in view of
Gen. St. 1915, § 6551.-E. D. Fisher Lumber
& Coal Co. v. Robbins, 180 P. 264..

VI. PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, NO-
TICE, AND PROTEST.

Judgment, 712; Justices of the Peace,
159; Mechanics' Liens, 277; Mines and
Minerals, 113; Municipal Corporations,
170, 528; Notaries, 11; Replevin,
123, 124; States, 1082.

BONE DRY LAW.

422(2) (Cal.) The writing above indorsers' names, declaring that they waive presentment, See Intoxicating Liquors, 17. etc., is a part of the contract of indorsement, enlarging liability.-Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P. 613.

BOOKS.

BOUNDARIES.

The words above indorsers' name, "I hereby See Criminal Law, 439. waive presentment," etc., are governed by Civ. Code, 1660, declaring that a promise made in the singular number, but executed by several persons, is presumed to be joint and several.

-Id.

Circumstances held to show that accommodation indorsement of company's note by stockholders and officers, under words of waiver of presentment, etc., was joint and several.-Id.

VII. PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE.

430 (Cal.) Debt represented by note of company to bank is not paid by company giving new note to cover the same and other subse

quent indebtedness; the new note not having been offered or accepted as a satisfaction of the old note, but merely as additional evidence of the original debt.-Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P.

613.

VIII. ACTIONS.

493(4) (Cal.App.) The presumption that depositor's note charged to his personal account, and placed on file with bank papers by cashier upon his abstraction of proceeds from bank funds, was based upon a consideration, cannot overcome direct evidence that note was not credited to account of depositor, or of corporation of which he was president, showing that neither received any benefit from note. National Bank of San Mateo v. Whitney, 180

P. 845.

See Appeal and Error, 997; Evidence, 16, 23; Frauds, Statute of, 70.

I. DESCRIPTION.

3(3) (Mont.) Before courses and distances can determine a boundary, all means for ascertaining the location of lost monuments must be first exhausted; and, where there is a conflict between monuments and courses and distances, the latter must yield to the former.-Myrick v. Peet, 180 P. 574.

When physical marks established and stamped by a government officer are visible, fixed, and capable of positive identification, there are no lost monuments, and they import absolute verity and must prevail, the parties being bound by their locations as they appear upon the ground, regardless of quantity mentioned in the deed, and the question is not whether the monuments were correctly placed, but whether they were placed by authority.-Id.

Where monuments can be recognized by competent civil engineers, they are to be taken as a guide in fixing boundaries.-Id.

3(6) (Wash.) When a corner located by government surveyor is definitely shown, it will prevail over distances, courses, blazes, or calls of the official field notes.-Milwaukee Land Co.

corner,

v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 180 P. 879.
7 (Wash.) Error in location of a
however plainly shown, is not subject to correc-
tion by the courts.-Milwaukee Land Co. v.
Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 180 P. 879.

ESTABLISHMENT.

497 (2) (Ariz.) The Negotiable Instrument Law (Civ. Code 1913, par. 4204) casts the burden of proof on the corporation holding notes negotiated to it by a person whose title was defective to show that it was a holder in due II, EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND course, under section 4197.-Navajo-Apache Bank & Trust Co. v. Wakefield, 180 P. 529. 501 (Kan.) In an action on a note, after ar-33 (Mont.) The burden of proof is always bitrators had found against defendant's claim on the party attempting to show the existence of payment, it was not error to take the date of an agreement fixing the location of a boundof the note as the starting point for introduc- ary line, and that the boundary so fixed has tion of evidence.-Washington Nat. Bank v. been accepted and acquiesced in.-Myrick v. Peet, 180 P. 574. Myers, 180 P. 268.

517 (Cal.) Evidence held to show that company's note to bank was not delivered till after it was indorsed by all the accommodation indorsers. Hurlbut v. Quigley, 180 P. 613.

37(3) (Wash.) In action under Rem. Code 1915, § 947, to establish boundary line between plaintiff and defendant's lands in adjoining sections, the determinative question being whether 518(1) (Kan.) Where there is some evidence a purported quarter section corner was the corthat a note was given for a valuable considera- the evidence, that the government surveyor did ner set by government surveyor, held, under tion and no evidence that it was not so given, not locate purported corner as a corner on the the trial court is justified in finding a valid consideration. In re Hoover's Estate, 180 P. 275. section line.-Milwaukee Land Co. v. Weyer525 (Ariz.) In an action on notes, defend-40(1) (Mont.) In a boundary line dispute, haeuser Timber Co., 180 P. 879. ant's testimony that he had given actual notice evidence held to show that the court was justithat the notes were obtained by fraud and mis- fied in directing a verdict for defendant on the representation to plaintiff's president by letter was wholly insufficient to make a primary show- theory that neither party claimed more than ing of notice of fraud, where the president denied its receipt and defendant did not show that the letter was properly addressed, stamped, and deposited in the mail, particularly where the letter was answered by another and from a town other than where plaintiff's president lived.-Navajo-Apache Bank & Trust Co. v. Wakefield, 180 P. 529.

to the true line, and that occupancy to a certain fence was merely subject to future ascertainment of its proper location. Myrick v. Peet, 180 P. 574.

46(1) (Mont.) In order that there may be a boundary fixed by agreement, the boundary must be one between contiguous lots, and must be doubtful and uncertain.-Myrick v. Peet, 180 P. 574.

In the absence of a real dispute, an agreement purporting to establish the boundary between lands of adjacent proprietors at a line known by both to be incorrect, the result of which, if given effect, must be to transfer to one lands which both know do not belong to him, is without consideration and void.-Id.

48(7) (Mont.) Where lands of two adjoining | no privity or interest therein, was not a memo-
proprietors are divided by a fence which they randum sufficient to satisfy the statute of
suppose to be the true line, they are not bound frauds (L. O. L. § 808).-Rugh v. Soleim, 180 P.
by the supposed line, but must conform to the 930.
true line when ascertained.-Myrick v. Peet,
180 P. 574.

43(3) (Wash.) A description of land read-
ing "the north 10 acres of orchard tract seven
miles west of Toppenish," in a contract employ-
ing an agent or broker to sell or purchase real
estate for compensation or a commission, is not
sufficient to satisfy Rem. Code, 1915, § 5289,
the statute of frauds on the subject.-Kuh v.
Lemcke, 180 P. 889.

43(3) (Wash.) In an agreement to pay bro-
ker's commission for procuring purchaser for
"80 acres, 22 miles from Wapato, south; legal
description S. 1⁄2 of S. E. 27-11-19," descrip-
tion held not defective, in that no mention was
made therein of the state, county, or location
as to base line or meridian.-Schmidt v. Powell,
180 P. 892.

39(4) (Cal.App.) The supervisors of a coun-
ty, who have not agreed with the supervisors of
adjoining county for the reconstruction of a
bridge on the county line, pursuant to the leg-44 (Cal.App.) Where contract giving broker
islative discretion conferred on them by Pol. right to sell property at certain price for cer-
Code, § 2713, are not liable for a traveler's in- tain commission did not specify duration there-
juries due to failure to replace the bridge. of, owner could terminate contract at any time
South v. San Benito County, 180 P. 354.
before broker procured purchaser ready, will-
ing, and able to purchase on the terms stated in
his contract.-Roth v. Thomson, 180 P. 656.
46 (Cal.App.) An agreement, making a
broker the sole agent for sale of defendant's
interests in the premises for the period of 30
days, construed as permitting defendant to dis-
pose of her interest by sale without liability for
commissions.-California Land Security Co. v.
Ritchie, 180 P. 625.

46(3) (Cal.App.) A complaint in an action
for personal injuries received by plaintiff when
defendant's automobile, in which he was riding,
plunged over an embankment where a bridge
had been removed, not alleging negligence, or
facts from which negligence of the defendant
owner and driver can be inferred, does not
state a cause of action against such defendant.
-South v. San Benito County, 180 P. 354.

BRIEFS.

See Appeal and Error, 757-773.

BROKERS.

See Escrows, 14; Evidence, 10,
317; Insurance, 329; Parties,
Sales, 66; Specific Performance,
Vendor and Purchaser, 11.

46 (Cal.App.) Where broker wrote owner
asking if his land was still for sale and if there
had been any change in the price, and the owner
replied, naming price and stating broker's com-
mission upon his sale of land, owner had the
right to sell the land independently of agree-
271, ment with broker; such contract not giving
69; broker the exclusive right to sell land nor mak-
89;ing him exclusive agent for sale thereof.-Roth
v. Thomson, 180 P. 656.

dor's land "one-half down and the balance in
49(2) (Cal.App.) Under contract to sell ven-

II. EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORITY.
14 (Cal.App.) A contract between landown-five
ers and a broker authorizing the latter "to sell
all of his interest" gives authority to sell only
such interest as such owner may have in the
premises, and not any particular estate or fee
simple.-California Land Security Co. v. Ritch-
ie, 180 P. 625.

IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN.

equal annual payments," a broker is not
entitled to a commission upon vendor's refusal
to sign a sale contract under which purchaser
could refuse to complete the purchase by for-
feiture of $100 for noncompliance; such being
an option contract and incapable of specific per-
formance. California Land Security Co. v.
Ritchie, 180 P. 625.

To entitle a broker to agreed commissions, he
40 (Or.) A contract whereby a broker was
must produce a purchaser able, willing, and
to sell or trade real and personal property pro-ready to purchase, and he is not entitled to
viding for a lump sum without reference to the
separate value of any particular item held
not severable as to the realty.-Rugh v. Soleim,

180 P. 930.

C43(1) (Or.) A contract whereby a broker is
to sell real and personal property, including
services within the statute of frauds, is void
when not in writing as required by L. O. L. §
808, notwithstanding part of the property is
personal; action thereon being on the contract,
and not for the quantum meruit.-Rugh v. Sole-
im, 180 P. 930.

commission for producing such a proposed pur-
chaser who reserved to himself the right of
election either to complete or arbitrarily refuse
to complete purchase, even though a perfect ti-
the be shown.-Id.

49(3) (Cal.App.) Vendors under contract
with broker for sale of land, terms "one-half
down and the balance in five equal annual pay.
ments," cannot be required to accept payment
by check, and they need not bind themselves to
convey until this objection is removed by the
offer at the time of a different method of pay-
ment, reasonable in character and satisfactory
to them.-California Land Security Co. V.
Ritchie, 180 P. 625.

43(2) (Idaho) Under Sess. Laws 1915, c.
131 (Comp. Laws, § 6012), providing that no
contract for broker's commission shall be valid
unless in writing, signed by owner or his rep-53 (Cal.App.) Where purchasers had been
resentative, a broker or agent who has procured
a purchaser for land under an alleged oral con-
tract with owner cannot recover a commission
in action on quantum meruit.-Weatherhead
v. Cooney, 180 P. 760.

43(3) (Or.) A contract for the exchange of
land drawn up by a real estate broker, signed
by the broker's principal and the other party to
the exchange, providing for a commission to be
figured in regular manner and for the pay-
ment of the customary sum, but not stating to
whom payable, not being a contract made for

trying to buy property for a period of 11 years,
and during such time had been negotiating
with owners, broker was not procuring or effi-
cient cause of sale, though he had property list-
ed and had sent purchasers letters describing it
among other properties for sale without call-
ing particular attention to it.-Roth v. Thom-
son, 180 P. 656.

Real estate broker is not entitled to commis-
sion for sale of land unless his efforts are the
procuring or inducing cause of sale.-Id.

54 (Cal.App.) Broker, to be entitled to com-