Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Real-Estate-Brokers/Broker-Must-Be-Procuring-Cause-Of-Sale-Part-10.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:39:21+00:00

Document:
In Quist v. Goodfellow, 99 Minn. 509 (1906), it was said: "Some of the authorities hold that a real estate broker is entitled to his commission where his efforts were in fact the procuring cause of a sale though made by the owner in good faith and in ignorance of his efforts. * * To entitle the broker to a commission in such case, where there is no exclusive agency, it must appear that the owner knew, or from the circumstances ought to have known, that the broker was instrumental in inducing the purchaser to enter into the contract. Such was the rule laid down in Cathcart v. Bacon, 47 Minn. 34; 49 N. W. 331, and it is the law in other states.81 We are aware of the fact that the authorities are somewhat conflicting upon the subject. (19 Cyc. 264.)"
76 Schultz v. Zelman, 111 S. W. 776 (Tex. 1908).
77 Morgan v. Keller. 194 Mo. 679 (1905).
78 I.loyd v. Matthews. 51 N. Y. 124 (1872); Finch v. Betts. 134 111. App. 475 (1907); Boqua v. Marshall, 114 S. W. 714 (Ark. 1908); Goldsmith v. Coxe. 61 S. E. 555 (S. C. 1908). See also Sec. 100. 101 supra and Sec. 240. 241 infra.
79 See also Henninger v. Burch. 90 Minn. 43 (1903).
80 See Colonial Trust Co. v. Pacific Co.. 158 Fed. 280 (1907), in which the court refers to Graves v. Bains, 78 Tex. 92; Bryan v. Ahert. 3 App. D. C. I8O; Adams v. Decker 34 111. App. 17; Kellv v. Stone. 94 Iowa 316; Millan v. Porter. 31 Mo. App. 563; Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mo. 249; Ross v. Muskowitz. 95 S. W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 86.
81 Citing Soule v. Deering, 87 Me. 365: 32 Atl. 998; Gamble v. Grether, 108 Mo. 340; 83 S. W. 306; Tinges v. Moale, 25 Md. 480; 90 Am. Dec. 73; Wylie v. Marine, 61 N. Y. 415.
82 Jungeblut v. Gindra, 134 App. Div. 293 (N. Y. 1909).
83 Citing Gerding v. Haskin. 141 N. Y. 514; Rae Co. v. Kane, 121 App. Div. 494.
84 Citing Lloyd v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124; Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N. Y. 319; Wylie v. Marine National Bank, 61 N. Y. 415.
85 Citing Metcalfe v. Gordon, 86 App. Div. 368.
86 Mlllan v. Porter 31 Mo. App. 570 (1888), (citing Tyler v. Parr, 52 Mo. 250; Goffe v. Gibson, 18 Mo. App. 4).
87 Waters & Son v. Rafalsky, 134 App. Div. 870 (N. Y. 1009).
88 Hobbs v. Edgar. 23 Misc. 018 (N. T. 1898) : Wright v. McCllntock, 130 111. App. 442 (1907); Phinlzy v. Bush. 129 Ga. 486 (1907): Morris v. Francis. 75 Kans. 580 (1907): s. c. 89 Pac. 901; Cook v. Forst. 110 Ala. 396 (1896).
80 Markus v. Kenneally, 43 N. Y. Suppl. 1056 (1897).
90 Walker v. Baldwin, 106 Md. 032 (1907).
91 Miller v. Vlnlng, 112 App. Div. 304 (N. Y. 1906).
92 Parkhurst v. Tryon, 134 App. Div. 843 (N. Y. 1909). See also subject of exclusive agency in Sec. 99 supra end 239 infra.
93 Willard v. Ferguson, 125 App. Div. 868 (N. Y. 1908). See also Klernan v. Bloom, 91 App. Div. 429 (N. Y. 1904), quoted supra Sec. 96.

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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.