In the early English cases, involving the question of acceptance and actual receipt, the word "delivery" is frequently used as if that word were the equivalent of acceptance and actual receipt.8 The word "acceptance," likewise, in some cases is used alone as if in itself it included the whole requirement of the statute.9 One of the services to clear thinking in the law of sales rendered by Blackburn in his book on the "Contract of Sale," was making it clear that acceptance and actual receipt were imposed by the statute as a double requirement. "As there may be an actual receipt without any acceptance, so there may be an acceptance without any receipt." 10

7Hinehraan v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 54, 31 L. Ed. 339, 8 8. Ct. 369; McMillan v. Heaps, 86 Neb. 635, 123 N. W. 1041.

8Chaplin v. Rogers, 1 East, 192; Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taunt. 458. See Searle v. Keeves, 2 Esp. 598; Norman v. Phillips, 14 M. ft W. 277; Beedy v. Brayman Wooden Ware Co., 108 Me. 200, 79 Atl. 721, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 76; Vincent v. Germond, 11 Johns. 283; Patterson v. Sargent etc. Co., 83 Vt. 516, 77 Atl. 338, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1102. Thus where goods though delivered are never accepted the statute is not satisfied. Berkman v. Brower, 76 N. Y. Misc. 508, 135 N. Y. S. 682. Cf. decisions in Iowa statute, cited in note to the preceding section.

9 Howe v. Palmer, 3 B. & Ald. 321; Tempest p. Fitsgerald, 3 B. & Ald. 680; Bill v. Bament, 9 M. ft W. 36 (by Lord Abinger); Terney v. Doten, 70 Cal. 399, 11 Pac. 743; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 62 Me. 341, 360, 16 Am. Rep. 462.

10 Blackburn on Sales (1st ed.), 22. See also Van Boskerok v. Torbert, 184 Fed. 419, 107 C. C. A. 383, Ann. Cas. 1916 E. 171; Gard v. Ramos, 23 Cal. App. 303,138 Pac. 108; Beedy v. Bray-man Wot-den Ware Co., 108 Me. 200, 79 Atl. 721, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 76, Ann. Cas. 1913 B. 273; Castle v. Swift, 132 Md. 631, 104 Atl. 187; Stem v. Crawford (Md.), 105 Atl. 780; Kern-ensky v. Chapin, 193 Mass. 500, 79 N. E. 781;'Cross v. O'Donnell, 44 N. Y. 661, 664, 4 Am. Rep. 721; Grant v. Milam, 20 Okla. 672, 95 Pac. 424; Friedman v. Pious, 158 Wis. 435, 149 N. W. 218, and decisions in following section.