22. Until the moment of acceptance, an offer may be revoked, and a subsequent acceptance will be inoperative, except that - EXCEPTION - Where the party making the offer has contracted under seal or for a consideration to hold it open for a certain time, he may not revoke it within such time.

23. Notice of revocation must be communicated, to prevent an acceptance from being effective.

Since an offer, unaccepted, creates no rights, it follows that it may be revoked at any time before acceptance.86 An order, for instance, given to the agent of the party to whom it is made, who ha? no authority to accept it, is revocable at any time before his principal accepts it; and it is immaterial that the order recites that it is taken with the understanding that it is positive, and not subject to change or countermand.

11 Fed. 358; Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. Cas. 3S7. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 20; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-70.

85 Ramsgate Hotel Co. v. Montefiore, L. R. 1 Exch. 100; MINNESOTA LINSEED OIL CO. v. LEAD CO., 4 Dill. 431, Fed. Cas. No. 9,635, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, § 24; Ferrier v. Storer, G3 Iowa, 4S4, 19 N. W. 288, 50 Am. Rep. 752; Averill v. Hedge, 12 Conn. 424; Trounstine v. Sellers, 35 Kan. 447,

11 Pac. 441; McCracken v. Harned, 66 N. J. Law, 37, 48 Atl. 513; Sanford v. Howard, 20 Ala. 684, 68 Am. Dec. 101; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Curtis, 22 111. App. 304; Chicago & G. E. R. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Kempner v. Colra, 47 Ark. 510, 1 S. W. 869, 58 Am. Rep. 775; Stone v. Harmon, 31 Minn. 512, 10 N. W. 88; Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Goodman, 62 Neb. 107, 86 N. W. 1082. This has been held to apply to offers of a reward to the public generally by way of advertisement. Loring v. City of Boston, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 400. But see post. p. 49, note 22. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 20; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-70.

86•IDE v. LEISER, 10 Mont. 5, 24 Pac. 695, 24 Am. St. Rep. 17, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 20; Payne v. Cave, 3 Term R. 148; Offord v. Davies,

12 C. B. (N. S.) 748; Countess of Dunmore v. Alexander, 0 Shaw, D. & B. 190; Quick v. Wheeler, 78 N. Y. 300; Houghwout v. Boisaubin, 18 N. J. Eq. 315; Scbenectady Stove Co. v. Holbrook, 101 N. Y. 45, 4 N. E. 4; Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 99, 1 Am. Rep. 28; Boston & M. R. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 224; Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130; Larmon v. Jordan, 56 111. 204; Crocker v. Railroad Col, 24 Conn. 240; Martin v. Hudson, 81 Cal. 42, 22 Pac. 202; Miller v. Douville, 45 La. Ann. 214, 12 South. 132; Eskridge v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 264, 26 Am. Dec. 344; Tucker v. Lawrence, 56 VL 467; Benton v. Association, 170 Mass. 534, 49 N. E. 928, 64 Am. St. Rep.

87 Where an offer is made to several persons, it must be accepted by all before it becomes binding on the proposer, for an acceptance by less than all is not a compliance with the terms of the offer; and it follows that such an offer may be revoked at any time before it is accepted by all.88