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 purchase of the propert

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.

Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9 , ; Baer v. Kloos, 81 Minn. 218 , ; Sticha v. Benzick, 156 Minn. 52 , .

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 willing to buy on the p

Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9 , ; Baer v. Kloos, 81 Minn. 218 , ; Sticha v. Benzick, 156 Minn. 52 , .

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 previously pro

Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9 , ; Smith v. Corcoran, 81 Minn. 219 , .

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 terms; and the

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 , .

333; Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; Klein v. Funk, 82 Minn. 3 , .

Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , .

Kipp v. Bullard, 30 Minn. 84 , ; Wells v. Masterson, 6 Minn. 401 (566); Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; Adamson v. Wiggins, 45 Minn. 448 , ; Stuart v. Lowry, 49 Minn. 91 , ; Travelers Ins.

In actions of replevin a plaintiff may, under our system, allege generally that he is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the property, and under such an allegation may prove any right of property, general or special, that entitles him to possession; Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; Adamson v. Wiggins, 45 Minn. 448 , ; Cumbey v. Lovett, 76 Minn. 227 , .

See Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , ; McKasy v. Huber, 65 Minn. 9 , .

The plaintiff: claims that the motion was a joint one for a new trial on behalf of all of the defendants; hence, if the evidence sustains the verdict as to one of the defendants, the motion was properly denied as to all of the defendants, within the rule of Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , .

Miller v. Adam-son, 45 Minn. 99 , .

*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.”.

Miller v. Adamson, 45 Minn. 99 , .