Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130. Quick v. Wheeler, 78 N. Y. 300. § 25. Acceptance by Letter or Telegram: Frequently offers of sales are made through the medium of letters or telegrams, and then the question arises, May the same means be used to communicate the acceptance, and, if so, when is the sale complete? The general rule is that offers made by letters or telegrams may be accepted, within a reasonable time, and before knowledge of retraction by the offerer, by the same means by which the offer was made. Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend. 103. Hamilton v. Insurance Co., 5 Pa. St. 339. 26. Date of Acceptance: It is generally held in such cases that the sale dates from the time the letter is posted or the message is left at the telegraph station to be forwarded, irrespective of the fact whether or not the addressee ever receives the letter or the telegram. The one mailing the acceptance has employed the means or agency authorized by the offerer. He has by mailing his acceptance, properly addressed, done all that could reasonably be required, and therefore the contract is closed. Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend. 103. Tayloe v. Insurance Co., 9 How. 390. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, Trevor v. Wood, 36 N. Y. 307. 27. Sale by Operation of Law: There are cases in which a sale is said to take place without the mutual assent of the parties, but by the operation of law. Thus, where one sues for the conversion of 14 FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT. goods (trover), and recovers the value thereof, the title is said to vest in the defendant by the right of sale. Curtis v. Groat, 6 Johns. 168, 5 Am. Dec. 204. Wooley v. Carter, 7 N. J. L. 85. Kenyon v. Woodruff, 33 Mich. 315. Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1. Query. Would there be a sale in such a case, "by operation of law," in a state where it is illegal to sell intoxicating liquors? Suppose B converts to his own use A's wine. A may lawfully possess the wine, but cannot sell it within the state. B by unlawful act possesses himself of A's wine. A now sues for the conversion. What becomes of the title to the wine? § 28. Assent as Affected by Mistake: The parties assenting to a sale may either mutually or individually be under a misapprehension as to certain matters connected with it, such, for example, as the identity of the chattel, its species, its price, or there may be some mistake as to the identity of the person dealt with. In what way do these circumstances affect the assent? The principles connected with these questions are treated in Part III, under the title of MISTAKE, to which the reader is referred. 3. THE THING SOLD. § 29. No Longer in Existence: If the chattel which is the subject-matter of the sale is no longer in existence at the time of the formation of the contract, there is, of course, no consideration, and therefore no enforceable contract. Kelly v. Bliss, 54 Wis. 187. (Property destroyed by fire.) Gibson v. Pelkie, 37 Mich. 380. Gardner v. Lane, 9 Allen, 499, 85 Am. Dec. 779. Dexter v. Norton, 47 N. Y. 62. Kenyon & Woodmust. plamlift in recover the tilles ha by operation fears. It is concinalis pequenal the defezidant in error. The tille is conclusive. therefore crop 3 na 737 dy noilgage was man before-all matured and Linalured and it wous then wood but became and decom. mälund. Sanborn & Bengslich 18 2th 307 when the A contrail when the corner qowing in the field, for the m Ja cer lain. Jount of down at a clipeated frive to be telivened int the trifure was not debey ih I though the judgment of the partic. at it the propel of at com Proso bury have lowwolled them, the contract. Long & stines 4 Mand 425. Cros aking age uns held in b the ground that the crop star or printed Dr Matured when mortgage Low V. at the time the contract was of made, in had in artivas or Pential in um and therefore the util -pass, for in. not § 30. Not yet Having Come into Existence: (Invalid.) Cameron v. Marvin, 26 Kan. 612. Head v. Goodwin, 37 Me. 181. Williams v. Briggs, 11 R. I. 476, 23 Am. R. 518. Gittings v. Nelson, 86 Ill. 591. But see also, below, under "Potential Existence" (§ 31), and "Equitable Sales" (§ 34). § 31. Potential Existence: Hull v. Hull, 48 Conn. 250. Arques v. Wasson, 51 Cal. 620, 21 Am. R. 718. Headrick v. Brattain, 63 Ind. 438. Andrew v. Newcomb, 32 N. Y. 417. § 32. Rule as to Crops: (a) Planted: (Valid.) Sanborn v. Benedict, 78 Ill. 309. (b) Unplanted: Van Hoozer v. Cory, 34 Barb. 9. Headrick v. Brattain, 63 Ind. (Held, valid.) (Held, invalid.) (Held, invalid.) 438. (Held, valid.) Gittings v. Nelson, 86 Ill. 591. (Held, invalid.) Long v. Hines, 40 Kan. 220. (Held, invalid.) Dickey v. Waldo, 97 Mich. 255. (Held, valid.) s. C., 23 L. R. A. 449, and note. § 33. Mere Possibility or Hope: (Invalid.) Low v. Pew, 108 Mass. 347. Needles v. Needles, 7 Ohio St. 432. $ 34. Equitable Sales: Equity will, at times, construe a contract so as to give to the vendee a lien upon the property when the same, not in existence at the time of the contract, afterwards comes into the ownership of the vendor. The doctrine is most frequently applied, however, in case of mortgages. Kribbs v. Alford, 120 N. Y. 519. Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 382. |