43 American Automobile Co. v. Perkins, 83 Conn. 520, 77 Atl. 954; Cameron Coal Co. v. Universal Metal Co., 28 Okla. 615, 110 Pac 720. See also Bauman v. McManus, 75 Kans. 106, 89 Pac 15, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1138. InDavidge v. Velie, 95 N. Y. Misc. 511, 160 N. Y. Supp. 820, 821, speaking of an order the court said: "The written instrument here is nothing more than an offer by the defendants to purchase fertiliser, fixing price, quality, quantity, time, and place of delivery. No acceptance binding the plaintiff can be found within the four comers of the paper. It may be that soliciting the order and manual acceptance of the paper would warrant the inference of its acceptance, but that must be shown by evidence outside the paper." 44Gould v. Cates Chair Co., 147 Ala. 629,41 So. 675; Toledo Computing bale Co. v. Stephens, 96 Ark. 606, 132 S. W. 926; Outcault Advertising Co. s Young Hardware Co., 110 Ark. 123,

161 S. W. 142; Bauman v. McManus, 75 Kan. 106, 89 Pac. 15, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1138; John Matthews Apparatus Co. v. Rens, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1528, 61 S. W. 9; Burbank v. McDuffee, 65 Me. 135,137; Howe Scale Co. v. Wolfs-haut, (Supr. Ct. App. Term), 170 N. Y. S. 943; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515, 13 N. W. 485, 42 Am. Rep. 740; cf. Clark v. Murphy, 164 Mass. 490, 491, 41 N. E. 674; Brennan v. Dansby, (Ten. Civ. App.) 95 S. W. 700. Often the order or so-called contract expressly provides that it shall not be binding on the principal until accepted by him, Hargrove v. Crawford, 159 Ia. 522, 141 N. W. 423, or impliedly so provides, e. g., in Cary v. Appo, (App. Term.) 84 N. Y. S 569, the order stated: "You are at liberty to consult as to my reputation etc.," clearly indicating that the seller unless satisfied was not to be bound.

45 Grayling Lumber Co. p. Heming-way, 124 Ark. 354, 187 8. W. 327. See also Baltimore Breweries Co. v. Callahan, 82 Md. 106, 33 Atl. 460, and cases infra, note 46.

46 Williams v. Byrne, 7 A. & E. 177; similar rule in regard to leasee.47 One who receives an appointment as sole agent agrees by his assent to the appointment not only that the principal shall have no other agent, but also that he himself will use reasonable diligence in endeavoring to forward the business of the agency.48 Where a franchise is offered to a corporation on condition that it assume certain obligations, acceptance of the franchise is an acceptance of an offer and binds the corporation to observe the stated terms.49

Hermann v. Littlefield, 109 Calif. 430, 42 Pac. 443; State Board v. Meyers, 20 Colo. App. 139, 77 Pac. 372; Hart v. Bradbury, 201 111. 82; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Parker, 92 Md. 22, 47 Atl. 1012; Dunton v. Derby Desk Co., 186 Mass. 35, 71 N. E. 91; Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co., 200 Mass. 1, 86 N. E. 877; Allen v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 205 Mass. 569, 91 N. E. 887; Sines v. Wayne County, 58 Mich. 503, 25 N. W. 485; Wright v. Elk Rapids Iron Co., 129 Mich. 543, 89 N. W. 335; Home Fire Ids. Co. v. Barber, 67 Neb. 644, 93 N. W. 1024, 60 L. R. A. 927,108 Am. St. 716; Fitch v. Martin, 74 Neb. 538,104 N. W. 1072; Capron v. Stout, 11 Nev. 304; Douglass v. Merchants Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 484, 23 N. E. 806, 7 L. R. A. 822; Adams v. Fitzpatrick, 125 N. Y. 124, 26 N. E. 143; Mason p. New York Produce Eich., 127 N. Y. App. D. 282, 111 N. Y. S. 163; Kelly v. Carthage Wheel Co., 62 Ohio St. 598, 57 N. E. 984; Wallace v. Floyd, 29 Pa. 184, 72 Am. Dec. 620; Houston Ice Ac Co. v. Nioolini (Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S. W. 84; Dickinson v. Norwegian Plow Co., 101 Wis. 167, 76 N. W. 1108; Appleton Waterworks Co. p. Appleton, 132 Wis. 663, 113 N. W. 44; Halter v. Goody, 4 Sask. L. R. 161; Bullock v. Wimmera, 5 Vict. L. R. (L.) 362; Short v. Laery, 11 N. Zealand L. R. 17. The inference may be rebutted by evidence of any kind which indicates an expression by words or acts of a different intention. Rex p. Macclesfield, 3

T. R. 76; O'Connor v. Briggs, 182 Mass. 387, 66 N. E. 836; Summers v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 60 N. Y. Misc. 181,98 N. Y. S. 226; Schott v. La Com-pagnie Generate, 52 N. Y. Misc. 238, 102 N. Y. S. 901. As to the effect of the Statute of Frauds, see infra, {503.

47 Doe p. Bell, 5 T. R. 471; Earle v. Kelly, 21 Calif. App. 480,132 Pac. 262; Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 99 111. 151; Cramer p. Baugher, 130 Md. 212, 100 Atl. 507; Faxon v. Jones, 176 Mass. 138, 67 N. E. 360; Ackley p. Westervelt, 86 N. Y. 448; Phipps Est. v. Tong Phong, 214 N. Y. 308, 108 N. E. 410; Baltimore Ac. R. Co. v. West, 67 Ohio St. 161, 49 N. E. 344; Adams v. Dunn, 64 Pa. Super. 303; Grice v. Todd, 120 Va. 481, 91 S. E. 609; and see 24 Cyc. 1011. For cases where the inference was rebutted, see Cowell v. Snyder, 171 Calif. 291, 162 Pac. 920; and 24 Cyc. 1014.

48 American Distributing Co. v. Hayes Wheel Co., 250 Fed. 109, 115; Kaufman p. Farley Mfg. Co., 78 Ia. 679; Mueller p. Betheeda Mineral Spring Co., 88 Mich. 390, 50 N. W. 319; Commercial Wood & Cement Co. p. Northampton Portland Cement Co., 116 N. Y. App. D. 388,100 N. Y. Supp. 960; Taylor v. Bannerman, 120 Wis. 189, 97 N. W. 918. Cf. Stensgaard p. Smith, 43 Minn. 11, 44 N. W. 669. As to any implication that the principal will continue to do business, see infra, Sec. 1293.

49Public Service Commission v.

The acceptance by a creditor of a note payable in the future implies a promise to forbear suit until that day,50 and whenever an offeree manifests by action taken, within the knowledge of the offeror, an assent to a proposed contract, the action will operate as an assent on the offeree's part to make the promise requested by the offeror.51