Hodgins

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of a real estate salesman for a commission against a broker other than his employer broker, the contention of the appellant being that the decision of Firpo v. Murphy, 72 Cal. App. 249 [ 236 Pac. 968 ], is controlling, and from that decision he inferred that the court meant that the particular service had to be rendered to the employer broker by the real estate salesman in order to enable the salesman to recover. That is not the way we construe the law as to the holder of a real estate salesman’s license.

In ease the real, estate salesman should leave the employ of his employer broker and should do business at another place, that would raise a question, which is not before this court. So far as the evidence shows, the real estate salesman was still located with and doing business from the office of his employer broker; and in the course of such work, he rendered services for another broker, the defendant and appellant herein.

The appellant further contends that the plaintiff did not produce a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy the property in question. It does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to object in a case…