An offer to sell a specified quantity of goods cannot be made binding on the proposer by ordering a less quantity, for there is no offer to sell any quantity greater or less than that specified.72 And the same is true where the offer is to sell a certain quantity each of several articles, and the person to whom the offer is made orders the specified quantity of one or more of them, but declines of an offer to sell land, "subject to the title being approved by" the acceptor's attorneys, is not conditional. Hussey v. Horne-Payne, 4 App. Cas. 311, 8 Ch. Div. 670. See "Vendor and Purchaser" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 16, 17; Cent. Dig. §§ 17-21.

69 Martin v. Fuel Co. (C. C.) 22 Fed. 596; Appleby v. Johnson, L. R. 9 C. P. 158; Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Pet. 455, 7 L. Ed. 219; Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. S. 29, 24 L. Ed. 54; First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 101 U. S. 43, 25 L. Ed. 822; Brown v. N. Y. Central R. Co., 44 N. Y. 79; Canton Co. v. Railroad Co., 21 Md. 383, 396; First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 61 Md. 400, 48 Am. Rep. 114; Bruce v. Bishop, 43 Vt. 161; Sibley v. Felton, 156 Mass. 273, 31 N. E. 10; Sparks v. Pittsburgh Co., 159 Pa. 295, 28 Atl. 152; Stanley v. Dowdes-well, L. R. 10 C. P. 102; Shepard v. Carpenter, 54 Minn. 153, 55 N. W. 906; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 100 Pac. 647, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 637. And see post, p. 52. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 16, 17; Cent. Dig. §§ 17-21.

70Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. Cas. 238; Bolton v. Lambert, 41 Ch. Div. 295; Bonnewell v. Jenkins, 8 Ch. Div. 70, 73; Cheney v. Transportation Line, 59 Md. 557; Allen v. Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309, 14 S. W. 869; Lawrence v. Railroad Co., 84 Wis. 427, 54 N. W. 797; Sanders v. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209, 39 N. E. 75, 29 L. R. A. 431, 43 Am. St. Rep. 757. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 16, 17; Cent. Dig. §§ 17-21.

71 Ridgway v. Wharton, 6 H. L. Cas. 238; Winn v. Bull, 7 Ch. Div. 29; Wills v. Carpenter, 75 Md. SO, 25 Atl. 415; Commercial Tel. Co. v. Smith, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 494. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 16, 17; Cent. Dig. §§ 17-21.

72 Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rolling-Mill Co., 119 U. S. 149, 7 Sup. Ct 168, 30 L. Ed. 376; Michigan Bolt & Nut Co. v. Steel. Ill Mich. 153, 69 N. W. 241. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 22-28; Cent. Dig. §§ 39-48; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. §§ 71, 75.

the others.73 Nor will an order of a certain quantity of goods, accepted by sending a less quantity, impose any liability for the goods sent.74 So, also, if a person proposes to sell land to another for a certain sum, and the latter replies that he will give a less sum, there is nothing binding between the parties.75 Again, if a person offers to sell land, saying nothing as to the place of payment, and the acceptance specifies that payment shall.be made at the acceptor's place of residence, there is no contract, since, under the offer, the proposer would be entitled to payment at his place of residence.79