The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 65
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
GASTON, WILLIAMS & WIGMORE OP CANADA V. WARNER 65
tomer. A considerable sum of interest on the mortgages was unpaid,
as well as a large amount of unpaid taxes, and the customer was a
married woman, and her husband had not joined in the deed. There
were other objections, and the title was rejected, and the contract of
exchange was never performed. The court held that the broker was
entitled to his commissions when the contract of exchange was exe-
cuted. The court below instructed the jury:
"That, in the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, the law is
that the broker is entitled to his commissions when the vendor accepts, when
he [the broker] brings to the vendor a party ready and willing to accept the
terms fixed by the vendor, and the party is satisfactory to the vendor and he
enters into a contract with him."
The Court of Appeals held that the instruction presented no error.
In Colvin v. Post Mortgage & Land Co., 225 N. Y. 510, 516, 122
N. E. 454, it is laid down that to earn his commissions a broker or-
dinarily must accomplish what he undertakes to do in his contract of
employment; that if he fails to do so, but produces a buyer with
whom the owner is satisfied, and who executes a contract of sale with
the owner at a price and upon terms satisfactory to the latter, the
broker is entitled to his compensation. The court then goes on to say
that a failure to complete thereafter, whether due to the fault of the
buyer or of the seller, will not deprive the broker of his commissions.
This seems to be the law of the state of New York, which is the place
in which the broker was employed and where the services were ren-
dered; and in the instant case the broker produced customers who
were able, ready, and willing to contract, and were accepted by the
seller, who executed a contract of sale with them.
 That the broker may lose his right to his commission because
of the illegality of the transaction is, of course, true. The rule is that,
if the transaction negotiated by the broker is illegal, and he partici-
pates in the illegality or has knowledge thereof, he is not entitled to
his commission. Neither is he entitled to it if his services are tainted
with illegality. 9 C. J. 634; 19 Cyc. 375; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S.
499, 510, 4 Sup. Ct. 160, 28 L. Ed. 225; Volker v. Fisk, supra ; Walsh
v. Hastings, 20 Colo. 243, 38 Pac. 324; Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St.
195, 20 N. E. 203. But in this case the contract of sale was not ille-
gal under the law of the state of New York, where it was made and
was to be performed.
The Supreme Court has held that, if the party employing a broker
makes representations to the latter who obtains a customer able, will-
ing, and ready to buy, the vendor is bound for the commission, if the
sale fails solely because the vendee finds that the representations made
by the vendor to the broker and repeated by him to the vendee were
false. In Dotson v. Milliken, 209 U. S. 237, 28 Sup. Ct. 489, 52 L.
Ed. 768, the owner of 124,000 acres of coal land agreed with a bro-
ker to give him $2.50 an acre for every acre the broker could sell at
$20, and that the broker was to go to work for a purchaser. The
owner made certain representations to the broker as to the intentions
of a railroad company to run its road through the property. The
broker secured a purchaser on the terms named by the vendor, but
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/87/: accessed May 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.