H. W. White Investment Co. v. Kelso

Supreme Court of Minnesota

H. W. White Investment Co. v. Kelso

184 N.W. 790, 150 Minn. 169, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 752

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 21, 1921

DocketNo. 22,513

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.W. 790 (H. W. White Investment Co. v. Kelso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H. W. White Investment Co. v. Kelso, 184 N.W. 790, 150 Minn. 169, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 752 (Mich. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibell, J.

Action by a real estate broker to recover commission. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant listed with the plaintiff, a real estate broker, a piece of property in Minneapolis for sale for cash for $6,000. The. plaintiff procured a purchaser who offered to assume a mortgage of $2,700, and [170]*170pay the balance of $3,300 in cash. The defendant declined the offer. The terms offered by the purchaser were not those upon which the defendant authorized his broker to sell. It may be material to the seller that he have all cash instead of part cash and an assumption of a mortgage. Anyway, the terms of sale required all cash. That a broker, to earn his commission, must procure a purchaser ready to purchase on the terms which he is authorized by the owner to offer, is fundamental. Bergh v. Stanek, supra, page 73, 184 N. W. 371. This the plaintiff did not do. .

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dibell, J.

Action by a real estate broker to recover commission. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant listed with the plaintiff, a real estate broker, a piece of property in Minneapolis for sale for cash for $6,000. The. plaintiff procured a purchaser who offered to assume a mortgage of $2,700, and [170]*170pay the balance of $3,300 in cash. The defendant declined the offer. The terms offered by the purchaser were not those upon which the defendant authorized his broker to sell. It may be material to the seller that he have all cash instead of part cash and an assumption of a mortgage. Anyway, the terms of sale required all cash. That a broker, to earn his commission, must procure a purchaser ready to purchase on the terms which he is authorized by the owner to offer, is fundamental. Bergh v. Stanek, supra, page 73, 184 N. W. 371. This the plaintiff did not do. .

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W. 790, 150 Minn. 169, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-w-white-investment-co-v-kelso-minn-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack