COMMISSIONS. Compensation allowed to agents, factors, executors, trustees, receiv ers, and other persons who manage the af fairs of others, in recompense for • their services.
The right to such allowance may either be the subject of a special contract, may rest upon an implied contract to pay quantum nieruit, or may depend upon statutory pro visions; 7 0. & P. 584; 9 id. 559.
The right does not generally accrue till the completion of the services; 4 C. & P. 289; 7 Bingh. 99; Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 38 Am. Rep. 441; and see 10 B. & C. 438; and does not then exist unless proper care, skill, and perfect fidelity have been employed; 3 Campb. 451; 9 Bingh. 287; Dodge v. Tileston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 328; McDonald v. Maltz, 94 Mich. 172, 53 N. W. 1058, 34 Am. St. Rep. 331; Smith v. Tripis, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 21 S. W. 722; and the services must not have been illegal nor against public policy; 8 B. & C. 639; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 258, 6 L. Ed. 468.
Brokers. The broker is entitled to a fair and reasonable opportunity perform his obligations, subject to the right of the seller to sell independently, but, that having been granted to him, the right of the principal to terminate his authority is unrestricted, ex cept only that he may not do it in bad faith, and as a mere device to escape commis sions ; Sibbaid v. Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 38 Am. Rep. 441; Crowe v. Trickey, 204 U. S. 228, 27 Sup. Ct. 275, 51 L. Ed. 454 (where the death of the principal was held to ter minate the broker's authority though he had found the purchaser, and the sale was after wards completed by the administrator) ; Fulty v. Wiener, 34 Kan. 576, 9 Pac. 316; Wilson v. Sturgis, 71 Cal. 226, 16 Pac. 772 ; Ropes v. Rosenfeld's Sons, 145 Cal. 679, 79 Pac. 354; that the owner sold the property after the expiration of the contract period and that such sale was, to some extent, aided by the broker's efforts, does not give the broker a right to commissions ; Donovan v. Weed, 182 N. Y. 43, 74 N. E. 563; Kelly v. Marshall, 172 Pa. 396, 33 Atl. 690.
Where the purchaser's refusal to complete the transaction is due to the fact that the seller's title is defective, the broker may nev ertheless recover his commissions ; Ham mond v. Crawford, 66 Fed. 425, 14 C. C. A. 109 ; Phelps .v. Prusch, 83 Cal. 626, 23 Pac. 1111; Davis v. Laurence, 52 Kan. 383, 34
Pac. 1051; Stange v. Gosse, 110 Mich. 153, 67 N. W. 1108 ; Yoder v. Randol, 16 Okl. 308, 83 Pac. 537, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576; Gilder v. Davis, 137 N. Y. 504, 33 N. E. 599, 20 L. R. A. 398; Parker v. Walker, 86 Tenn. 566, 8 S. W. 391; Birmingham Land & Loan Co. v. Thompson, 86 Ala. 146, 5 South. 473 ; so he may recover where he has found a pur chaser ready and willing to complete the contract, though the sale fails because the vendor has been mistaken in the identity of the lands he offered for sale; Arnold v. Bank, 126 Wis. 362, 105 N. W. 828, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 580.
Financial inability of the purchaser to per form his contract to purchase real estate does not deprive the broker of his commis sions ; Moore v. Irwin, 89 Ark. 289, 116 S. W. 662, 20 Ta. R. A. (N. S.) 1168, 131 Am. St. Rep. 97; the broker's contract is to effect a bargain, and if he produces a responsible customer, ready to contract, his principal cannot defeat his right to commissions by capriciously refusing to make the contract. The proof of the responsibility of the in tending, purchaser is required, not because the broker contracts to guarantee responsi bility, but to show that the failure to make the contract was not the fault of the broker ; Alt v. Doscher, 186 N. Y. 566, 79 N. E. 1100 ; Leuschner v. Patrick (Tex.) 103 S. W. 664 ; Wray v. Carpenter, 16 Colo. 271, 27 Pac. 248, 25 Am. St. Rep. 265; Parker v. Estabrook, 68 N. H. 349, 44 Atl. 484; Stewart v. Fow ler, 53 Kan. 537, 36 Pac. 1002 ; Jenkins v. Hollingsworth, 83 Ill. App. 139.
On the contrary, it is held in some cases that, to entitle a broker to his commissions, he must produce a party capable of becom ing, and who ultimately becomes, the pur chaser ; that it is not sufficient that a con tract of sale is executed between the parties and a portion of the price paid, where there is a forfeiture of the contract because of the financial inability of the purchaser ; Riggs v. Turnbull, 105 Md. 135, 66 AU. 13, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824, 11 Ann. Cas. 783. Where a bro ker procures a purchaser of street railway bonds, who refuses to complete his contract because of their invalidity, he may not re cover his commissions, if he knew such cus tomer never intended to take and pay for them, but meant to negotiate their sale to other parties for a higher price ; Berg v. R. Co. (Tex.) 49 S. W. 921.