Gilder v. . Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1893
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently June 1981 · most notably Lane — Real Estate Department Store, Inc. v. Lawlet Corp. (1971), Colvin v. . Post Mortgage Land Co. (1919)
2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Mooney v. . Elder · Nesbitt v. Helser · Pierce v. Powell
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the juncture that the broker produces an acceptable buyer he has fully performed his part of the agreement with the vendor and his right to commission becomes enforcible (sic) (even if) 'from a defect in the title of the vendor, or a refusal to consummate the contract on the part of the purchaser for any reason in no way attributable to the broker, the sale falls through.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The general rule is that when a broker, employed to negotiate a sale of real estate, brings to his employer a responsible purchaser willing to buy upon the terms prescribed he has earned his commission. Mooney v. Elder, 56 N. Y. 238 ; Sibbald v. Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378 [ 38 Am. Rep. 441 ]; Duelos v. Cunningham, 102 N. Y. 678 [ 6 N. E. 790 ]; Kalley v. Baker, 132 N. Y. 1 [ 29 N. E. 1091 , 28 Am. St. Rep. 542 ], Where the contract of sale is executed between the employer and the purchaser, the right of the broker to his commissions does not depend upon the performance of the contract by the purchaser. If from a defect in the title of the vendor, or from a refusal to consummate the contract on the part of the purchaser for any reason in no way attributable to the broker, the sale falls through, nevertheless the broker is entitled to his commissions, for the simple reason that he has performed his contract. If he negotiates a contract different from that prescribed by his employer, and the employer subsequently ratifies it, and thus a contract is finally made, which is satisfactory to" him, then the broker has earned his commission. Nesbitt v. Helser, 49 Mo. 383 ; Coleman’s Ex’rs v. Meade, 13 Bush (Ky.) 358 . These rules apply where the broker has acted in good faith, and the contract made is either signed by the employer himself or is approved or ratified by him. The contract for the sale of real estate may provide for the payment of a sum of money as liquidated damages by the p”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brink v. Goodelle““While it is not necessary to be determined upon this appeal, it is by no means clear that when the contract was closed between the plaintiff and [the purchaser] the defendants were not entitled to their full commissions. They had then negotiated a contract of sale which was satisfactory to the plaintiff and which was approved and confirmed by him. If there had been no further agreement between the parties as to the commissions, it might be claimed, at least with some plausibility, by the defendants, that they were entitled to their commissions, as they would have been if they had negotiated a contract containing a stipulation for the payment of liquidated damages in case of failure of performance by either party.” (Italics ours.) (p. 509.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Roseberry
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.