¶1 delivered the opinion of the court.
¶2 This is a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District, and in order to save copying a long statement we undertake to state the point in the case.
¶3 The appellants were employed as real estate brokers to make sale of certain land belonging to appellee, and having effected, as they claimed, a sale to one Clark, brought suit for their commission. In the contract for the conveyance of the land, after specifying the price, consideration, etc., the following stipulation was inserted: “And it is further mutually agreed in case purchaser fails to comply with the terms hereof relating to the payment and securing of the pur *569 chase price as above mentioned and by the time herein designated, purchaser shall forfeit the amount paid hereon to seller and the same shall be paid to seller by said trustees and accepted by said seller as and for liquidated damages for such injury and damage as the seller may suffer by reason of the nonperformance of this contract on the part of the purchaser.”
¶4 The question certified for our determination is, whether upon this contract a sale was effected so as to entitle the appellants to their commission.
¶5 We have numerous decisions holding that, although there is a stipulation in the contract of this character, payment of a fixed sum of money as liquidated damages does not affect the contract for sale of the land but that the seller can enforce specific performance. (Hemming v. Zimmerschitte, 4 Texas, 159; Williams v. Talbot, 16 Texas, 1; Vardeman v. Lawson, 17 Texas, 11; Bullion v. Campbell, 27 Texas, 653; Gregory v. Hughes, 20 Texas, 345.)
¶6 It seems to us that these decisions are decisive of the case. If the vendor of the land can enforce a specific performance of the contract to pay for it, then the broker has effected a sale, valid in law, and is entitled to his compensation. We have also examined the authorities cited in the certificate upon the same proposition and find it is amply supported by them. (Lyman v. Gedney, 29 N. E., 282; Hull v. Sturdivant, 46 Me., 34; Hooker v. Pynchon, 74 Mass. (8 Gray), 550; Ewins v. Gordon, 49 N. H., 444; O’Connor v. Tyrrell, (N. J. Eq.), 30 Atl., 1061; Palmer v. Bowen, 34 N. E., 291, affirming s. c. in 18 N. Y. Supp., 638; Kettering v. Eastlack, 107 N. W., 177.)
¶7 We therefore answer the question submitted in the affirmative and say that the contract is such that appellee is entitled to have it specifically enforced, and that therefore the appellants are entitled to their commission for making the sale.
¶8 Opinion filed' December 3, 1908.