The prevailing doctrine seems to be that expressed in a leading English case,78 by Lord Bowen " that the declaration of such intention by the promisor is not in itself, and unless acted on by the promisee, a breach of the contract; and that it only becomes a breach when it is converted by force of what follows it into a wrongful renunciation of the contract." If this is true, no right of action can arise until there has been not only repudiation but action upon it. Therefore a New York decision holding that a telegram repudiating a contractual obligation operated as a breach as soon as received for transmission cannot be accepted.79

77 See Ripley v. McClure, 4 Exch. 345.

78 Johnstone v. Milling, 16 Q. B. D. 460.

79 Wester v. Casein Co., 206 N. Y. 506, 100 N. E. 488, Ana. Cas. 1914 B. 377. The parties in the case had been in correspondence so that implied authority to use the telegraph might be found, but this would not avoid the difficulty in regard to acceptance of the breach. See List-man Mill Co. v. Dufresne, 111 Me. 104. 88 Atl. 354.