If the acceptance is unconditional and unequivocal the fact that the offeree protests against the terms of the offer does not render such acceptance invalid.1 If A offers to pay a certain sum upon a disputed claim, B's reply to the effect that he thinks that A should pay a larger sum, but that if A would not do so, B would accept A's proposition, such reply is an acceptance of A's offer.2 An answer to a request for insurance for a certain amount to the effect that the amount seemed too much but that the insurance could stand till Monday, when the insurers would be glad to see the insurer, was an acceptance of the proposal to insure for the full amount for the time indicated.3

9 Turner v. McCormick, 56 W. Va. 161, 107 Am. St Rep. 904, 67 L. R. A. 853, 49 S. E. 28.

10 Wilkins v. Vass Cotton Mills, - N. Car. - , 97 S. E. 151. (The difficulty grew out of defective punctuation of the telegram.)

1 Warren Bros. Co. v. King, 96 Minn. 190, 104 N. W. 816.

2 Warren Bros. Co. v. King, 96 Minn. 190, 104 N. W. 816.

3 Warren Bros. Co. v. King, 96 Minn. 190, 104 N. W. 816.

1 Stevenson v. McLean, L. R. 5 Q. B. 346; Baxter v. Calhoun, 222 Fed. 111.

2 Baxter v. Calhoun, 222 Fed. 111.

1 Nebraska. Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 875, 66 N. W. 834.

Michigan. Johnson v. Federal Union Surety Co., 187 Mich. 454, 153 N. W. 788.

New York. Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 20 L. R. A. 785, 33 N. E. 1034.

Ohio. Neville v. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Mutual Ins. Co., 17 Ohio 192 [see, however, reversal on a question of construction in Neville v. Ins. Co., 19 Ohio 452].

Vermont McDaniels v. Lapham, 2J Vt 222.