Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Real-Estate-Brokers/Chapter-XIII-Broker-Must-Act-In-Good-Faith.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:00:50+00:00

Document:
1 4 Am. & Eng. Encv. of Law (2nd Ed.), 971. quoted in Low v. Woodbury. 107 App. Div. 298 (N. Y. 1905), where Is also cited Martin v. Bliss. 57 Hun 157 (N. Y. 1890): Whaples v. Fahys, 87 App. Div. 518 (N. Y. 1903) : Murray v. Beard. 102 N. Y. 505 (1886). See also Hafner v. Herron, 165 111. 247 (1897); Jeffries v. Bobbins. 66 Kans. 437 (1903); Veasey v. Carson, 177 Mass. 117 (1900).
² Featherston v. Trone. 102 S. W. 198 (Ark. 1907).
* Citing Storv on Agency. Sec. 334; Pratt v. Patterson's Exrs., 112 Pa. St. 475; Prescott v. White, 18 111. App. 322.
4 Hafner v. Herron. 105 III. 247 (1897). of the vendors for effecting the sale.8 In Hess v. Gallagher, 64 Misc. 95, 96 (N.Y. 1909), it was said: "As agents for the defendant, the plaintiffs might not directly buy from or sell to the defendant and recover for services upon their own contract as his agents; because, as agents, they were and would be under legal obligation to respect the confidence reposed in them as such, and could not unite, Jekyll and Hyde like, in their same persons the character of principal, which would naturally tend to a violation of the confidence reposed in them as agents and by whose active instrumentality an acceptance of defendant's offer was effected, if at all; and, therefore, they would and did disentitle themselves to recover for services therein, because 'contracts which are opposed to open, upright and fair dealing are opposed to public policy. A contract by which one is placed under a direct inducement to violate the confidence reposed in him by another is of this character.' "
5 Poilatschek v. Goodwin. 17 Misc. 591 (N. Y. 1890) ; Colonial Tr. Co. v. Pacific Co., 158 Fed. 284 (1907); Cook v. Platt, 104 S. W. 1133; 126 Mo. App. 553 (1907).
6 See Sec. 47-68 supra for fuller discussion of broker acting for both parties.
7 See Plotner v. Cliillson, 95 Pac. 777 (1908), (citing McKlnley v. Williams. 74 Fed. 95; 20 C. C. A. 313).

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