An attempted acceptance of an offer to sell land, adding a term to the effect that the title is to be good,1 accepting an offer to sell land with the provision that an abstract of title be furnished;2 an acceptance which requires both an abstract and a clear title, such as an acceptance, "Send deed for collection to bank, with abstract showing clear title at expense of vendor";3 an offer to sell land which is accepted with the provision that the purchaser must furnish an unlimited certificate of title from a specified title insurance company;4 or that the title is to be approved by the vendee's representative,5 is ineffectual. So where the offer is to sell land "as the title now stands. Have no desire to get bottom title," and the acceptance is "without qualification," but adding,."We understand, of course, that you have Lash's title and that you will place the same on record."6

1 Corley v. Ehlers, 99 Kan. 748, 163 Ac. 140; Glenn v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 52 Mont. 414, 158 Ac. 834.

2 Corley v. Ehlers, 99 Fan. 748, 163 Ac. 140. See Sec. 193.

3 Glenn v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 52 Mont. 414, 158 Ac. 834.

1 Spinney v. Downing, 108 Cal. 666, 41 Ac. 797.

2 Sparks v. Mauk, 170 Cal. 122, 148 Ac. 926.

1 Corcoran v. White, 117 HI. 118, 57 Am. Rep. 858, 7 N. E. 525; Warner, etc., Co. v. Guthrie, 12 O. C. C. 182 [affirmed without opinion, 57 O. S. 672, 50 N. E. 1135].

Contra: Where the acceptance is conditioned "if the title prove satisfactory" on the theory that such condition was implied in the offer: Bolton v. Huling, 91 111. App. 350. To the same effect see Hussey v. Home-Payne, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 311; and Morse v. Tillotson & Wolcott Co., 253 Fed. 340, 1 A. L. R. 1485. See Sec. 177.

2 Johnson v. Fecht, 185 Mo. 335, 83 S. W. 1077.

3 Richards Trust Co. v. Beach, 17 S. D. 432, 97 N. W. 358.

4 Lambert v. Gerner, 142 Cal. 399, 76 Ac. 53.

5 James v. Darby, 100 Fed. 224, 40 C. C. A. 341.