(after stating the facts). It can make no difference, as to the liability of appellant upon his contract for a division of the commissions with appellee, broker, that he was not at the time of such agreement a licensed salesman of appellee, in whose employ he had been when the property was listed with appellee for sale and negotiations begun therefor. The jury found, on conflicting testimony, that he had agreed to divide the commissions on an equal basis at the time of quitting the employ of appellee, in case he should make the sale of certain property, which it is admitted that he afterwards effected; and it is unimportant whether he had a license as a salesman for appellee at the time of such agreement, or a license on his own account or any license at all, since he was duly licensed at the time he perfected the sales and earned the commissions.
Appellee was a regularly licensed real estate broker, and could, of course, make a sale of any of his property *959listed through any individual dealer or salesman, so far as he was concerned, and becomes entitled to whatever commissions were agreed to be paid by such salesman.
There is nothing inherently unlawful in the carrying on a brokerage business, and there is no intimation in the testimony of contemplated violation of any law or affecting the sales through an unlicensed salesman when the agreement for division of the commissions was made. Engles v. Blocker, 127 Ark. 385, 192 S. W. 193.
This is all that was done in this case, and the testimony is amply sufficient to support the verdict. Neither do we find any error in the giving or refusal to give instructions, and the judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.