This appeal involves the same subject matter as Samuel Blanken & Co. v. Sigmund Goldblatt et al. (No. 20,014, Dec. 1, 1966), 371 F.2d 949, decided this day adversely to appellant. No attempt will be made here to discuss the facts delineated therein, except to state that appellee here is the agent of the lessor and that appellant, having failed to recover against appellee in a prior contract action, Blanken v. Goldblatt, et al., No. 19,536 (Nov. 23, 1965), is here seeking recovery of the reasonable value of his services by way of quantum meruit.

The District Court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. We believe that appellant’s claims here are governed by the principles announced in today’s Gold-blatt decision. Moreover, it conclusively appears from the record in the two cases that appellant was definitely on notice that he could not look to the appellee for his commission, but rather must look to the lessees.

The decision of the District Court being clearly correct, it is therefore affirmed.