Francis v. Baker

• Decision Date: 17 December 1890
• Citation: 47 N.W. 452,45 Minn. 83
• Parties: FRANCIS ET AL. v BAKER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 83

47 N.W. 452

FRANCIS ET AL.vBAKER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 17, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where a real-estate broker, employed, for a commission to be paid, to procure a purchaser for property, presents to the principal a proposed purchaser, it is for the principal then to decide whether the person presented is acceptable; and if, without any fraud, concealment, or other improper practice on part of the broker, the principal accepts the person presented, and enters into an enforceable contract with him for the purchase of the property, the commission is fully earned. The party presented is then a purchaser within the meaning of the contract between the principal and the broker, although the sale has not been completed by the payment of the consideration to the vendor.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county.

Williams & Goodenow, for appellant.

J. M. Dunn and W. H. Mead, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

Where a person agrees with a real-estate broker to pay him a commission if he procures a purchaser for his property on specified terms, the broker, in order to entitle him to his commission, is bound to present a purchaser who is ready, able, and willing to buy on the proposed terms, and the principal is not bound to accept a proposed purchaser unless he is able to perform the contract on his part according to the proposed terms. But it is for the principal then to decide whether the person presented is acceptable; and if, without any fraud, concealment, or other improper practice on part of the broker, the principal accepts the person presented, either on the terms previously proposed or upon modified terms then agreed upon, and enters into a binding and enforceable contract with him for the purchase of the property, the commission is fully earned. The party presented is then a purchaser, within the meaning of the contract between the principal and the broker, although the sale is not completed or executed by payment of the consideration to the vendor. Rice v. Mayo, 107 Mass. 550;Pearson v. Mason, 120 Mass. 53;Coleman's Ex'r v. Meade, 13 Bush, 358;Love v. Miller, 53 Ind. 294;Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. 145; Simonson v. Kissick, 4 Daly, 143; Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. St. 43. In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 253, which, however, might have been decided upon the ground that the party presented had never entered into any...