Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Real-Estate-Brokers/Supp-Ch-XVI-Failure-Of-Principal-To-Complete.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:50:02+00:00

Document:
Tanenbaum v. Boehm, 202 N. Y. 293; 95 N. E. 708 (1911); Tull v. Starmer, 188 Mo. App. 713; 176 S. W. 511 (1915). See Sec. 158, 177, 187, 191.
As to broker's right to recover from vendor commissions promised by purchaser, when vendor refuses to convey, see cases under Sec. 334.
See also Sec. 116, footnote 14.
1 Handley v. Shaffer, 177 Ala. 636; 59 So. 286; Bailey v. Padgett, 70 So. (Ala.) 637 (1915).
2 Beougher v. Clark, 81 Kan. 250; 106 Pac. 39 (1910).
3Harrington Co. v. Rose Conser., 222 Mass. 372; 111 N. E. 37 (1916). See also Sec. 172.
4Backer v. Ratkowskv, 137 App. Div. 565; 122 N. Y. Suppl. 225 (1910).
O'Reilly v. Cryer, (Tex. Civ. .App.) 175 S. W. 773 (1915).
But where the seller's broker knew that the title was defective and the seller had agreed with the broker to cure the defect before contract, the broker would not lose his commission upon producing a purchaser, who refused to take the defective title which the seller had omitted to cure. Mi Cowan v. Eubank, (Tex. Civ. App.) 177 S. W. 512 (1915).
On page 17S, after "consummated the sale" add: Reeder v. Epps, 166 S. W. (Ark.) 747 (1914).
5 Tyler v. Seiler, 76 Misc. 185; 136 N. Y. Suppl. 394 (1912).
6Sheridan v. McLaughlin, 172 App. Div. 314; 158 N. Y. Suppl. 406 (1916). See also Sec. 159.
7Snyder v. Supreme Ruler, etc., 122 Tenn. 248; 122 S. W. 981 (1909).

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