Tight

The parties to this cause were realty brokers, and, while it was stipulated that they were not copartners, it appears that they had an understanding whereby one should receive a portion of any commissions involved in any escrow which he might assist the other in closing. It is admitted that respondent “worked in and out of” appellant’s office during the month of December, 1924, and a part of February, 1925. Prior to December, 1924, Mrs. J. R. Butler and her husband listed with appellant’s office certain real property, which appellant and respondent sold to H. E. Wells and wife, and the latter entered into possession thereof. The agreement for sale was escrowed with a Los Angeles bank, $1,000 of a total consideration of $15,500, being deposited with the escrow as commission, $775 of which was paid to said brokers. Said bank was then negotiating for a loan upon certain property belonging to Wells, and it was testified that the sale above mentioned was for cash, contingent upon the consummation of the loan. At the same time other brokers held an exclusive agency to sell the Wells property. The bank failed to make a loan, and the parties to the escrow transferred their escrow…