Cited by

The controlling principle is that stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 84 , , 453: “* * * [I] f, without any fraud, concealment, or other improper practice on part of the broker, the principal accepts the person presented, either on the terms previously proposed or upon modified terms then agreed upon, and enters into a binding and enforceable contract with him for the purc

See, Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , .

Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; Meyer v. Keating L. & M. Co. 126 Minn. 409 , ; Lowrie v. Christenson, 165 Minn. 181 , ; Sinna v. Sperry Realty & Inv.

Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; Meyer v. Keating L. & M. Co. 126 Minn. 409 , ; Lowrie v. Christenson, 165 Minn. 181 , ; Sinna v. Sperry Realty & Inv.

In Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, 84 , , recognized as a leading case, the court said: “Where a person agrees with a real-estate broker to pay him a commission if he procures a purchaser for his property on specified terms, the broker, in order to entitle him to his commission, is bound to present a purchaser who is ready, able, and will

In Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , , perhaps the leading case in Minnesota, Mr. Justice Mitchell, referring to the liability of one who accepts a purchaser upon different terms, says that: “If, without any fraud, concealment, or other improper practice on part of the broker, the principal accepts the person presented, either on the terms

Overstreet v. Rother, 153 Minn. 377 , , and cases cited; Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; Peet v. Sherwood, 43 Minn. 447 , ; Hamlin v. Schulte, 34 Minn. 534 , ; Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 472 , .

In Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , , Justice Mitchell said: “Where a person agrees with a real estate broker to pay him a commission if he procures a purchaser for his property on specified terms, the broker, in order to entitle him to his commission, is bound to present a purchaser who is ready, able, and willing to buy on the proposed

By entering into an enforceable contract with the purchaser procured by the plaintiff, the defendant did not become liable for a commission within the rule announced in such cases as Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; Gransbury v. Saterbak, 116 Minn. 339 , 133 N W. 851, and Meyer v. Keating L. & M. Co. 126 Minn. 409 , , for the special agreement provided against such result.'

Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 472 ; ; Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; McDonald v. Smith, 99 Minn. 42 , ; Gransbury v. Saterbak, 116 Minn. 339 , ; Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co. 126 Minn. 409 , ; Martinson v. Hensler, 132 Minn. 437 , .

Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , .

Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , ; Macfee v. Horan, 45 Minn. 519 , ; Goss v. Stevens, 32 Minn. 472 , ; Grans- *411 bury v. Saterbak, 116 Minn. 339 , .

*152 In Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , , it is said: 2 “Where a person agrees with a real-estate broker to pay him a commission if he procures a purchaser for his property on specified terms, the broker, in order to entitle him to his commission, is bound to present a purchaser who is ready, able, and willing to buy on the proposed terms.”.