43 L. R. A. 593; Gilder V. Davis, 137 n. Y. 504, 33 n. E. Rep. 599,

20 L. R. A. 398.

В§ 302. Unless there is an express agreement to

the contrary, the principal may revoke the broker's au-

thority at any time before the purchaser has been

found, and in such a case the broker will not be entitled

to any compensation for what he has done in endeavor-

Ing to find a purchaser. Where, however, the broker

substantially performed, the principal will not be

permitted to revoke the authority and complete the sale

himself for the very purpose of avoiding the payment

of the commission.

See Cadigan v. Crabtree, 179 Mass. 474, 61 N. E. Rep. 37, 551*.

R. A. 77; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., svpra.

§§ 302-304.] SPECIAL CLASSES OF AGENTS. 1G1

Where two or more brokers arc employed, he only is

entitled to tin* commission whose services were the ef-

ficient cause of the sale, even though the others have

also contributed in producing the result.

See Whitcomb v. Bacon, 170 Mass. 479, 49 N. E. Rep. 742, 64 Am.

St. Rep. 317.

§ 303. Compensation from both parties. — lie can

not have compensation from both parties except when

he acts as agent of both with their full knowledge and

consent.

Where, however, the broker was acting as a mere

"middle-man," bringing the parties together only and

then leaving them to make their own bargains, — the

broker standing entirely indifferent between them, —

the rule forbidding double compensation does not ap-

ply. In such a case it is held that the broker may

have compensation from each principal although each

may have been ignorant of the broker's relations to the

other.

See Rice v. "Wood; Bell v. McConnell, supra; McDonald v. Maltz,

94 Mich. 172, 53 n. W. Rep. 1058, 34 Am. St Rep. 331; Montross

V. Eddy, 94 Mich. 100, 53 n. W. Rep. 916, 34 Am. St. Rep. 323; Rice

V. Davis, 136 Pa. St. 439, 20 Atl. Rep. 513, 20 Am. St. Rep. 931.

§ 304. Reimbursement, indemnity and lien. — He is

entitled to reimbursement and indemnity like other

agents for losses and liabilities properly incurred and

advances made on his principal's account; but no! where

the loss was caused by his own default or the advances

were made to further a transaction known to be un-

lawful.

See Perin v. Parker, 126 111. 201, 18 N. E. Rep. 747. 9 Am. St.

Rep. 571, 2 L. R. A. 336; Ellis v. Pond Syndicate [1898], 1 Q. B.

426; Harvey V. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 n. E. Rep. 49, 15 Am. St.

Rep. 159; Gillett v. Whiting, 141 N. Y. 71, 35 N. E. Rep. 939, 38 Am.

St. Rep. 762.

13

162 Special classes of agents. [в§в§304-307.

The broker is ordinarily not in possession of the

goods he sells, and therefore generally he has no right

of lien. Since it is his duty to contract in the name

of his principal, he has usually no right to sue in his

own name upon the contracts which he makes.

See Fairlie v. Fenton, L. R. 5 Exch. 169, Cas. Ag. 669.