If the offer is, by its terms, to be acknowledged promptly, it lapses if not acknowledged promptly.1 So a telegram received at 10 p. m. Saturday night to be answered "instantly," can not be accepted on Monday morning, nothing preventing a reply on Saturday night.2 An offer requiring telegraphic acceptance on receipt, can not be v. Henshaw, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 225, 4 L. ed. 556.

Illinois. Larmon v. Jordan, 56 111. 204; Harding v. Gibbs, 125 111. 85, 8 Am. St. Rep. 345, 17 N. E. 60.

Iowa. Stone v. Howell, 168 la. 282, 150 N. W. 15.

Kansas. Samuelson v. Palmer, 96 Kan. 587, 152 Ac. 627.

Kentucky. Tevis v. Nugent (Ky,), 59 S. W. 9.

Louisiana. Brooks v. Broussard, 136 La. 380, 67 So. 65.

Maryland. Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 6 Am. St. Rep. 417, 11 Atl. 284.

Massachusetts. Boston, etc., Ry. v. Bartlett, 57 Mass. (3 Cush.) 224; Goldsmith v. Guild, 92 Mass. (10 All.) 239; Carter v. Phillips, 144 Mass. 100, 10 N. E. 500; Chaffee v. Ry., 146 Mass. 224, 16 N. E. 34.

Michigan. Cleaves v. Walsh, 125 Mich. 638, 84 N. W. 1108.

Missouri. Mason v. Payne, 47 Mo. 517.

Nebraska. Schields v. Horbach, 30 Neb. 536, 46 N. W. 629.

New Jersey. Potts v. Whitehead, 20 N. J. Eq. 55.

New York. Lester v. Jewett, UN. Y. 453; Page v. Shainwald, 169 N. Y. 246, 57 L. R. A. 173, 62 N. E. 356.

North Carolina. Alston v. Connell, 140 N. Car. 485, 53 S. E. 292.

Ohio. Longworth v. Mitchell, 26

O. S. 334.

Oklahoma. Powers v. Rude, 14 Okla. 381, 79 Ac. 89; Jones v. Moncrief-Cook Co., 25 Okla. 856, 108 Ac. 403.

Oregon. Wetherby v. Griswold, 75 Or. 468, 147 Ac. 388.

Pennsylvania. Yerkes v. Richards, 153 Pa. St. 646, 34 Am. St. Rep. 721, 26 Atl. 221; McMillan v. Philadelphia Co., 159 Pa. St. 142, 28 Atl. 220.

Rhode Island. Cabot v. Kent, 20 R.

1. 197, 37 Atl. 945.

Utah. Haskins v. Dern, 19 Utah 89, 56 Ac. 953.

West Virginia. Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va. 736, 3 L. R. A. 94, 8 S. E. 743; Barrett v. McAlister, 33 W. Va. 738, 11 S. E. 220.

Wisconsin. Atlee v. Bartholomew, 69 Wis. 43, 5 Am. St. Rep. 103, 33 N. W. 110.

5 Briles v. Paulson, 170 Cal. 408, 149 Ac. 804; Fields v. Wizard Investment Co., 168 Ky. 744, 182 S. W. 934; Longworth v. Mitchell, 26 O. S. 334.

6 Briles v. Paulson, 170 Cal. 196, 149 Ac. 169; Briles v. Paulson, 170 Cal. 408, 149 Ac. 804.

1 Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 216 N. Y. 310, 110 N. E. 619 [rehearing denied, 216 N. Y. 771, 111 N. E. 1098].

2 James v. Marion, etc, Co., 69 Mo. App. 207.

If an offer to sell land is to be accepted only by making payments at certain times, failure to make a later payment on time after making the early payments promptly, causes the offer to lapse,6 and the vendor may, without notice, forfeit the rights of the vendee.7 The opposite result has been reached where possibly the offer was to be accepted by the promise of the offeree; and his acts thereunder were as performance and not as acceptance. Thus where A gave B an option on a half interest in a stallion to be paid for by crediting one-half of the profits less certain expenses, and B was to pay the balance by a certain date, B's failure to pay the balance due (about one-third of the original debt) on such date, does not terminate B's rights.8

If the last day fixed by the offer is a holiday, but the statute does not provide for a suspension of business on that day, an acceptance on the day following is too late.9 In a state in which January first is a legal holiday, but no statutory provision forbids performance on such holiday or permits performance on the day following in lieu of performance in compliance with the terms of the contract, an option to be exercised by the first day of January can not be exercised on the third, although January second came on Sunday.10