The English law has never required an assent on the part of the obligee in order to make a deed binding.59 The obligee may decline to accept the estate or obligation conferred upon him by the deed, but until and unless he declines, the instrument is operative. On the other hand, many American authorities following the analogy of simple contracts, deny effect to a deed until there has been some acceptance by the grantee or obligee.60 In many of these jurisdictions, however, any nominal requirement of acceptance is virtually nullified by the rule that acceptance of a deed if beneficial will be presumed.61 Especially where infants and persons incapable of giving effective assent are obligees or grantees the presumption of acceptance has been indulged; 62 and it has been held that acceptance after the death of the grantor or obligor is sufficient.63

55Even though he is the obligee's attorney. Nichols p. Rosenfeld, 181 Mass. 525, 63 N. E. 1063.

56 Elliott v. Merchants Bank, 21 Cal. App. 536, 132 Pac. 280; Newman v. Baker, 10 Diet. Col. App. 187; Whitney v. Dewey, 10 Idaho, 633, 80 Pac. 1117, 69 L. R. A. 572; Ryan v. Cooke, 172 111. 302, 50 N. E. 213; McClendon d. Brockett, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 150, 73 S. W. 854; Blair v. Security Bank, 103 Va. 762, SO S. E. 262; Devlin on Real Estate, Sec.Sec. 314-317. But see Wilson v. Powers, 131 Mass. 539; Die-bold Safe & Lock Co. v. Morse, 226 Mass. 342, 115 N. E. 431; Holbrook v. Trueedell, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 9, 90 N. Y. S. 1034.

57 Seeley v. Curts, 180 Ala. 445, 61 So. 807; Stevens v. Stevens, 256 111 140,99 N. E. 917; Hoyt v. Northup, 256 111. 604, 100 N. E. 164; Spurlock v.

Spurlock, 149 Ky. 822,149 S. W. 1132; Thrush v. Thrush, 63 Or. 143, 126 Pac. 994.

58Thurston v. Tubbs, 257 111. 465, 100 N. E. 947; Wheeler v. Loesch, 51 Ind. App. 262, 99 N. E. 502; Lus-combe v. Peterson, 173 Mich. 165, 138 N. W. 1057; Henry v. Phillips, 105 Tex. 459, 151 8. W. 533.

59 In Butler & Baker's Case, 3 Coke, 25 a, 26 b. it is said: "If A makes an obligation to B and delivers it to C to the use of B, this is the deed of A presently; but if C offers it to B, there B may refuse it in pais, and thereby the obligation will lose its force (but perhaps in such case A in an action brought on this obligation cannot plead rum eat factum, because it was once his deed." See also Thompson v. Leach, 2 Vent. 198; Malott v. Wilson, [1903] 2 Ch. 494.