Where the proposed purchaser was, at the time of the signing of the contract of sale, ready to make the payment then due, the broker is not required to show that the purchaser had sufficient funds on hand at that time to make the final payment. Levy v. Buff, 23 N. Y. S. 1002, 2 Misc. 180; McDer-mott v. Mahoney (Iowa Sup.) 106 N. W. 925, affirmed on rehearing, 115 N. W. 32.

The fact that a purchaser is insolvent does not defeat the broker's right to a commission, where a cash payment is not required, and the contract of sale contemplates that the vendor is to be secured by a bond and deed of trust, which the, purchaser is prepared to deliver. Boss v. Fickling, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 442.

Where the proposed purchaser admits that he had not the ability to pay the price fixed, his testimony that he was acting in behalf of a syndicate, and that he would have been prepared when the time for payment came, to find the money required, does not show his ability to buy. Harmon v. En-right, 107 Mo. App. 560, 81 S. W. 1180; Butler v. Baker, 17 R. I. 582, 23 A. 1019; Fox v. Demargo Land Co., 37 Colo. 203, 86 P. 344; Madden v. Brown, 169 I11. App. 456; S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman, 51 Pa. Super. Ct. 632; Hicks v. Norton, 155 S. W. 669, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Fox v. Cohen, 34 App. D. C. 389. Compare Clark v. Wilson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 450, 91 S. W. 627. See also Sec. 558.

Where a broker, under a general contract of employment to sell real estate, obtained a purchaser satisfactory to his principal, who made an enforceable contract of sale, without being induced to do so by any representations of the broker as to the purchaser's responsibility, and without any bad faith on the broker's part, the latter was entitled to commissions, though, without the principal's fault, the vendee failed to perform the contract, solely because of the lack of sufficient financial responsibility at the time the contract was executed. Alt v. Dosher, 92 N. Y. S. 439, 102 App. Div. 344, affirmed 186 N. Y. 566, 79 N. E. 1100; Fox v. Ryan, 240 I11. 391, 88 N. E. 974; Glade v. Esatern I11. Min. Co., 129 Mo. App. 443, 107 S. W. 1002; Brand v. Nagle, 107 N. Y. S. 156, 122 App. Div. 490; Lombard v. Sills, 157 S. W. 93, 170 Mo. App. 555; Hutton v. Stewart, 135 P. 681, 90 Kan. 602; Gransbury v. Sater-bok, 133 N. W. 851, 116 Minn. 339; Seidel v. Walker, 173 S. W. 1170, - Tex. Civ. App. -; Root v. Grerdwohl, 128 P. 418, 20 Cal. App. 139; Ga. Iron & Coal Co. v. Rogers, Brown & Co., 77 S. E. 213, 12 Ga. App. 429; Brink v. Goodelle, 138 N. Y. Sup. 1035; Hopkins v. Settles, 149 P. 890, 46 Okl. 801; Harnwell v. J. D. Arnold & Co., 193 S. W. 506, - Ark Sup. -; Linton v. Johnson, 94 S. E. 945, - W. Va. Sup. - . Compare Dotson v. Millikin, 27 App. Cas. (D. C), 500. See also Sec. 192.

The broker must show that the purchaser is able to make the exchange, and this ability is not proved by the mere production of deeds on his part, without some showing that he also had title to the properties he was willing to deed. His ability does not depend upon general financial standing, but upon his being the owner of the land it was proposed to exchange. Herscher v. Wells, 103 I11. App. 418.

Where a principal accepts a purchaser found by his broker, without questioning his ability to perform, and the sale fails of consummation by the principal's own fault or failure to make good his offer, the burden is on him, in order to defeat the broker's right to compensation, to show the purchaser's want of financial ability. Dotson v. Milliken, 27 App. (D. C.) 500. Compare Alt v. Doscher, 92 N. Y. S. 439, 102 App. Div. 344; Glade v. Eastern I11. Min. Co., 129 Mo. App. 443; Brand v. Nagle, 107 N. Y. S. 156, 122 App. Div. 490. See also Secs. 192, 499.

In an action for a broker's commissions, evidence concerning arrangements made by the purchaser procured for funds with which to complete the purchase, and the financial ability of the concern from which funds were to be secured was admissible. Leuschner v. Patrick (Tex. Civ. App. '07), 103 S. W. 664; Czarnowski v. Holland, 5 Ari. 119, 78 P. 890; Clark v. Wilson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 450, 91 S. W. 627; Fox v. Demargo Land Co., 37 Colo. 203, 86 P. 344.

Slight evidence of the prospective purchaser's ability to pay for the land is all that is necessary in an action to recover commissions, the only fact a refusal of owner to make the sale. Bailey v. Padgett, 70 S. 637, 195 Ala. 203.

Where a vendor of land is not influenced by misrepresentations of his broker as to the financial condition of his vendee, such misrepresentations do not constitute a ground for refusing to pay the broker's commissions. Irwin v. Mowbray, 5 N. Y. S. 430.

A broker obtained a customer who contracted for the purchase of the property. Before the time fixed for performance the purchaser failed to obtain an extension of time asked for, because of his inability to procure funds. The purchaser, on ascertaining that the broker did not have the deed in his possession on the day fixed for performance, tendered the price and demanded the deed. The purchaser induced a bank to make the tender, with the understanding that the identical money would be returned. The tender was made by the bank's clerks. The purchaser, on being subsequently given an opportunity to purchase on the same terms refused to do so, though the property was worth more than the agreed price. Held, to show, as a matter of law, that the purchaser was not able and ready to comply with the terms of his agreement, defeating a recovery by the broker of his commissions. Little v. Herzinger, 34 Utah, 337, 97 P. 639.

It was not necessary, in order to entitle a real estate broker to commissions for land sold, that the purchaser should be able to perform at the time the contract was signed, but only at the time fixed for passing title. Joffe v. Nagel, 114 N. Y. S. 905.

A broker employed to procure a purchaser of real estate, who procures a purchaser capable and willing to contract to purchase, and who does not warrant the financial ability of the purchaser, and who is not guilty of any fraud, earns his commissions on the vendor and purchaser entering into a binding contract of sale and purchase, though a sale is not consummated because of the failure of the purchaser to perform, for the vendor takes the responsibility of accepting the proposed purchaser, and, in the absence of contract, the broker need not see that the purchase money is paid, nor enforce the contract of sale. Moore v. Irvin, 89 Ark. 289, 116 S. W. 662..

After a broker had negotiated a sale of land, and the prospective purchaser had been unable to obtain a loan with which to make the first payment, the owner's agent and the purchaser declared the deal off. Subsequently the agent gave the broker an extension of time in which to procure the loan of $7,000, to be secured by mortgage on the land, but he was able only to obtain a conditional verbal promise from one person to advance $6,500, secured by mortgage on the land, and an indefinite arrangement with a banker to lend $500 on personal security, on the usual terms of bank loans. Held, that he had failed to comply with the terms of the extension, and the agent and purchaser were justified in refusing to proceed further, even if the purchaser was bound by the agent's assent to the extension of time. Jones v. Buck (Iowa Sup. '09), 120 N. W. 112.

Where a broker employed to sell property on specified terms to designated persons, effects a sale to them on such terms, he need not, in an action for his commissions, show that they were able to make the purchase. Stoutenburg v. Evans (Iowa Sup. '09), 120 N. W. 59.

A real estate broker need not show, in order to recover commissions, that he produced a purchaser with legal tender in hand, but only that the purchaser was ready, willing and pecuniarily able to pay for the property within the time fixed, and it is sufficient if the purchaser has arranged so that the money will be available for payment when the deed is delivered, though part of it is obtained from a mortgage on the purchased property executed contemporaneously with the deed to the purchaser. McCabe v. Jones (Wis. Sup. '10), 124 N. W. 486.

Where an offer to exchange certain property contained an agreement binding defendant to pay plaintiff a commission of two and one-half per cent. of the value of defendant's property, in the event the deal was closed, plaintiff's right to such amount, on defendant's subsequent refusal to complete the exchange, did not depend on the fact that the acceptance of the offer by the other party was conditional on the property agreeing with a description contained in the offer, but solely on the readiness and ability of the other party to complete the exchange. Hege v. Hessell (Wash. Sup. '10), 107 P. 375.

The rule requiring the purchaser produced by the broker to be "ready, willing and able to purchase," means that such purchaser must possess these qualifications before the broker is entitled to demand that the owner do anything in the matter. Adams v. Hall, 168 I11. App. 569.

The broker who repeated to the seller, though in good faith, with intent to induce a sale, and with the result of doing so, the false and ridiculous statements of the buyer as to his financial responsibility, is entitled to no commission. Bute v. Williams, 162 S. W. 989, - Tex. Civ. App. - .

Under a broker's contract entitling him to commissions "in case he effects a sale," his right to compensation accrues when a valid contract to purchase is signed, although deed is not executed and delivered. Cain v. Masurette, 162 N. W. 287, 196 Mich. 7.

Broker who brings to the principal a purchaser who signed an enforcible contract to buy on owner's terms may recover on contract his agreed compensation, though principal is unable or refuses to perform, or has so misrepresented the property to broker and purchaser that purchaser does not consummate the contract. Nelson, Lee & Green v. Daly, 163 N. Y. Sup. 788.

Though a purchaser of realty secured by a broker was ready and willing to make first payment called for by contract when due, his readiness and willingness were not sufficient, he not having made payment, nor offered to do so, to entitle the broker to commission, which was to be paid from such first payment. Stelson v. Haigler, 165 P. 265, - Colo. Sup. - .

An unconsummated loan is not "negotiated" when the broker has found a lender ready and willing to advance the money, but the lender must also be able to advance the money. Cameron v. Ayres, 166 P. 801, - Cal. Sup. - .

Where purchaser procured by broker was without ready cash, but was promised a sufficient loan from persons who had the money wherewith to make it, he was ready, willing and able to purchase the property for cash. Webert v. Roberts, 179 N. W. 241, - Mich. Sup. - .