Real-Estate Broker

One who enholds himself out to the public in that character and capacity.

One who engages in the purchase and sale of real estate as a business, and holds himself out to the public in that character and capacity. Chadwick v. Collins, 26 Pa. 338. Where a broker contracts to produce a purchaser who shall actually buy, he has performed his contract by the production of one financially able, with whom the owner actually makes an enforceable contract of sale; Lunney v. Healey, 56 Neb. 313, 76 N. W. 558, 44 L. R. A. 593; Condict v. Cowdrey, 139 N. Y. 273, 34 N. E. 781; Middleton v. Thompson, 163 Pa. 112, 29 Atl. 796; Halsey v. Monteiro, 92 Va. 581, 24 S. E. 258; Donohue v. Padden, 93 Wis. 20, 66 N. W. 804; Carpenter v. Rynders, 52 Mo. 278; Phelps v. Prusch, 83 Cal. 628, 23 Pac. 1111; Hungerford v. Ilicks, 39 Conn. 259; Wilson v. Mason, 158 111. 304, 42 N. E. 134, 49 Am. St Rep. 162; Cassady v. Seeley, 69 la. 509, 29 N. }V. 432. In order to entitle a broker to commis* sions, there must be an actual sale, vesting a right to the purchase money iu the vendor and transferring the right of property to the purchaser; Orrnsby v. Graham, 123 la. 202, 98 N. W. 724, where a consummated sale is defined to be one consummated by such a contract as will be enforced by the courts, if enforcement be demanded. If the purchaser is unable to complete the sale and is obliged to pay a forfeit for his default, the broker can recover no share of such forfeit money, as his commission; Kimberly v. Henderson, 29 Md. 515; and so where a part of the purchase price has been paid and the purchaser is unable to pay the residue; Riggs v. Turnbull, 105 Md. 135, 66 Atl. 13, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824, 11 Ann. Cas. 783. Although the broker has spent time and money in finding a buyer, yet if he fails or abandons his effort or his authority is duly terminated, he earns no commission although he may have actually helped to bring about a sale subsequently made and to parties introduced by him, unless the broker’s sale fails by the fault of the principal or he capriciously changes his mind, or the title is defective; Sibbald v. Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 38 Am. Rep. 441; Muldoon v. Muldoon, 133 Mass. 110; Rockwell v. Newton, 44 Conn. 337; or because of certain erroneous repre- A broker did not lose his commissions for procuring a mortgage loan where it failed because the lender demanded an indemnity bond against liens, the time for filing which.had elapsed, and refused to accept a cash deposit with written evidence that no liens existed; Silberberg v. Chipman, 42 Colo. 20, 93 Pac. 1130, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 187. A statute providing that contracts with brokers for the sale of land must be in writing and subscribed by the parties is constitutional, and means no more than an extension of the statute of frauds; Covey v. Henry, 71 Neb. 118, 98 N. W. 434; under a like statute it was held that, where there was no writing, a broker who had rendered services could not recover commissions; Leimbach v. Regner, 70 N. J. L. 608, 57 Atl. 138; to the same effect, Jamison v. Hyde, 141 Cal. 109, 74 Pac. 695; Marshall v. Trerise, 33 Mont 28, 81 Pac. 400. Authority to close a binding contract must be sufficiently conferred; Weatherhead v. Ettinger, 78 Ohio St. 104, 84 N. E. 598, 17