Same - Delivery

It is sometimes said that delivery is necessary to give effect to a written contract, and this is true where by the agreement of the parties it is not to take effect until delivered.43 Delivery in this sense, however, is not a necessary element of the contract imposed by law, but rather an act evidencing the final agreement of the parties. It would be equally competent for them to agree that the contract should become binding without delivery.

Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 100 Pac. 647, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 637. See "Contracts;' Dec: Dig. (Key-No.) § 16; Cent. Dig. §§ 49-56.

39 Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Florida Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 394, 52 South. 13. See, also, ante, p. 36. See "Contracts:" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. § 159.

40 Leake, Cont. 98; Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L Cas. 268; Green v. Cole (Mo. Sup.) 24 S. W. 1058; Lewis v. Brass, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 667; Crossley v. Maycock, L. R. 18 Eq. 180; Sanders v. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209, 39 N. E. 75, 29 L. R. A. 431, 43 Am. St. Rep. 757; C. C. Emerson & Co. v. Stevens Grocer Co., 95 Ark. 421, 130 S. W. 541; Western Roofing Tile Co. v. Jones. 26 Okl. 209. 109 Par. 225. Ann. Cas. 1912R. 127. And see ante, p. 36. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 32; Cent. Dig. § 159.

41 Winn v. Bull, 2 Ch. Div. 29; Fowle v. Freeman, 9 Ves. 351; Gibbins v. Asylum District, 11 Beav. 1; Heyworth v. Knight, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 29S; Ros-eiter v. Miller, 5 Ch. Div. 648; Commercial Tel. Co. v. Smith, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 4M4; Allen v. Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309, 14 S. W. 869; Hodges v. Sublett, 91 Ala. 588, 8 South. 800; Lawrence v. Railroad Co., 84 Wis. 427, 54 N. W. 797; Mississippi & D. S. S. Co. v. Swift, 86 Me. 248, 29 Atl. 1003, 41 Am. St. Rep. 545; Edge Moore Bridge Works v. Bristol County, 170 Mass. 528, 49 N. E. 918. See, also, ante, p. 36. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 82; Cent. Dig. § 159.

42 Leake, Cont. 98; Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. Cas. 268. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 28, 29; Cent. Dig. §§ 133-148.

43 American Copying Co. v. Muleski, 138 Mo. App. 419, 122 S. W. 384; Ligon v. Wharton (Tex. Civ. App.) 120 S. W. 930. If a contract is placed in escrow, to be delivered upon the happening of a certain event, its delivery in violation of the condition does not give it effect, because there is no meeting of minds or common intention to be bound. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 141 Wis. 544, 124 N. W. 488. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 42; Cent. Dig. §§ 207-214; "Escrows," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 14; Cent. Dig. §§ 17-20.