If actual communication were necessary for the formation of a contract, or actual communication of the revocation of an offer necessary for its withdrawal, it would be immaterial that a letter of acceptance or revocation came into the possession of the person addressed; it would be necessary for the letter to be read. But the law in regard to this matter, as in regard to other matters in the formation of contracts, takes as its requirement an outward situation which would ordinarily connote the existence of the state of mind which would be necessary were mutual assent a matter of actual as distinguished from apparent assent. Accordingly, if a letter is in the possession of the person addressed, or of one authorized to receive it for him, or in a place which he has designated for the purpose, the letter has reached its destination and is as effectual though unread as if it were read.37

Rep. 220; Com. v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 648,83 Am. Dec. 712; Oregon 8. S. Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 446, 3 N. E. 485, 53 Am. Rep. 221; Perry v. German-American Bank, 53 Neb. 89, 73 N. W. 638.

34 Household Fire Ids. Co. v. Grant, 4.Ex. D. 216, 223, 238; Pennsylvania Lumbermans' Mut. F. I. Co. v. Meyer; 126 Fed. 352, 354, 61 C. C. A. 254, Mercer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Connecticut Elee. Mfg. Co., 87 Conn. 691, 89 Art.

909; Haas v. Myers, 111 111. 421, 423, 53 Am. Rep. 634; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Louisville Oil Co., 140 Ky. 506, 131 S. W. 277; Lewis v. Browning, 130 Mass. 173; McCone v. Eccles, (Nev. 1919), 181 Pac. 134; Vassar v. Camp, 11 N. Y. 441; Acker-man v. Maddux, 26 N. Dak. 50, 143 N. W. 147.

35 Lewis v. Browning, 130 Mass. 173.

36 McCone v. Eccles, (Nev. 1919), 181 Pac. 134.