Bailey

The salient facts affecting this appeal were that defendant, who was the owner of certain real property, employed plaintiff and his assignor as agents to negotiate an exchange thereof. Thereafter, through the efforts of plaintiff and his assignor, and in pursuance of such employment, an agreement was entered into between defendant and a Mrs. Robertson by which defendant agreed to exchange his real property for certain real properties or interests therein of which Mrs. Robertson was the owner, and she agreed to exchange her several properties for that owned by the defendant. In the same agreement defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff and his assignor the sum of one thousand dollars as a commission for effecting such exchange. Following the usual custom in such matters, the respective parties then placed the matter in escrow with a title company, with appropriate instructions with reference thereto. Four or five days thereafter, on account of some misunderstanding on her part with reference to the assignability of a lease which existed on the property belonging to defendant, Mrs. Robertson announced to plaintiff and defendant that she “could not go through with the deal”; to which…