Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Real-Estate-Brokers/Supp-Ch-XIV-Availability-Of-Purchaser-Part-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:21:52+00:00

Document:
5 McNamara v. Gregory, 211 N. Y. 21; 105 N. E. 78 (1914).
6 Warnekros v. Bowman. 128 Pac. (Ariz.) 49; 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 91 (1912). In the note to this case in 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 91, many authorities are cited. 6Note to Warnekros v. Bowman, in 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 91 (1912).
8Davidson v. Stocky, 202 N. Y. 423; 95 N. E. 753 (1911).
9 Mott v. Minor (Cal. App.), 106 Pac. 244 (1909).
10 Knisely v. Leathe, 178 S. W. (Mo.) 453 (1915) ; Coleman v. Meade, 13 Bush. (Ky.) 358; Donohue v. Flanagan, 9 N. Y. Suppl. 273; Roche v. Smith, 176 Mass. 597: 58 N. E. 153; 51 L. R. A. 510; 79 Am. St. Rep. 345; Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83; 47 X. W. 452; Wray v. Carpenter, 16 Colo. 271; 27 Pac. 24S; 25 Am. St. Rep. 265; Lockwood v. Halsey, 41 Kan. 166; 21 Pac. 98; Springer v. Orr, 82 111. App. 558; Love v. Miller, 53 Ind. 294; 21 Am. Rep. 192; cf. Riggs v. Turnbull, 105 Md. 135.
11Roche v. Smith, 176 Mass. loc. cit. 597; 58 N. E. 153; 51 L. R. A. 510; 79 Am. St. Rep. 345.
This is, obviously, on the theory that where the principal himself enters into and executes the contract, he has thereby made his choice of personally accepting the purchaser and has thus himself passed upon the financial responsibility and the acceptability of the purchaser, whereas when the broker has entered into and executed the contract on behalf of his principal, the broker assumes to take the responsibility of the financial ability and other ability of the purchaser to carry out the contract.
12Van Varick v. Suburban Inv. Co.. 76 Misc. 593; 135 N. Y. Suppl. 299 (1912); Travis v. Graham, 23 App. Div. 214; 48 N. Y. Suppl. 736.
13Van Varick v. Surburban Inv. Co., 76 Misc. 593; 135 N. Y. Suppl. 299 (1912); Alt v. Doscher, 102 App. Div. 344; 92 N. Y. Suppl. 439; affd.. on opinion of the lower court in 186 N. Y 566; 79 N. E. 1100; Brady v. Foster, 72 App. Div. 416; 75 N Y Suppl 994; Heinrich v. Korn, 4 Daly 74: Wray v. Carpenter, 16 Colo. 271; 27 Pac. 248; 25 Am. St. Rep. 265; Shainwald v. Cady, 92 Cal. 83;28 Pac l01; Parker v. Fstabrook, 68 N. H. 349; 44 Atl. 484; Hancock v. Dodge 85 Miss. 228; 37 So 711; Morgan v. Keller, 194 Mo. 663. 680; 92 S. W. 75; Crane v Eddy. 191 111. 645; 61 N E. 431; 85 Am. St. Rep. 284; Bankers Loan Investment Co. v. Spindle, 108 Va. 425: 62 S. E. 266; Green v. Hnllinsshead, 40 111. App. 195.
14Stewart v. Fowler. 37 Kan. 677; 15 Pac. 918.
15 .Id. 53 Kan. 537; 36 Pac. 1002.
16Van Varick v. Suburban Investment Co.. 76 Misc. 593; 135 N. Y. Suppl. 299 (1912); Inge v. McCreery, 60 App. Div. 557; 69 N. Y. Suppl. 1052.
Bailey v. Padgett, 70 So. (Ala.) 637 (1915).
17Hutchinson v. Plant, 218 Mass. 148; 105 N. E. 1017 (1914). 18 See Bailey v. Padgett, 70 So. (Ala.) 637 (1915).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.