It would follow logically that the party who has mailed an acceptance can not revoke such acceptance by any communication which is transmitted after such acceptance, even if it is received by the offeror before such acceptance is received;1 and on the same principle the party who has accepted can not, by a subsequent communication, modify the terms of the agreement thus made.2 Except in obiter, authority on this point seems to be scanty; but if the contract consists in mutual promises it must bind both parties or neither,3 and if the courts holds that the contract is completed as soon as the acceptance is mailed, so as to bind the offeror, who does not know that it has been mailed, it is clear that the contract should be complete so as to bind the offeree who knows that the acceptance has been mailed.

1 Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. Cas. 381.

2 Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W. 124; Dickins v. Beal, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 572, 9 L. ed. 538; Jones v. War-dell, 6 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 309.

1 Scotland. Thompson v. James, 18 Dunlop 1.

England. Henthorn v. Eraser (1892), 2 Ch. 27.

United States. Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, 37 L. ed. 790; Weld v. Victory Mfg. Co., 205 Fed. 770.

Arkansas. Kemper v. Cohn, 47 Ark. 519, 58 Am. Rep. 775, 1 S. W. 869.

Iowa. Moore v. Pierson, 6 Ia. 279, 71 Am. Dec. 409.

Maryland. Hand v. Marble Co.. 88

Md. 226, 40 Atl. 899 [citing Tayloe v. Ins. Co., 50 U. S. (9 How.) 390, 13 L. ed. 187].

Massachusetts. Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198, 60 Am. St. Rep. 387, 46 N. E. 617.

North Dakota. Reeves v. Bruening, 13 N. D. 157, 100 N. W. 241.

2 Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198, 60 Am. St. Rep. 387 46 N. E. 617.

1 Farmers' Produce Company v. Scnreiner, 48 Okla. 488, L. R. A. 1916A, 1297 [sub nomine: Farmers' Produce Co. v. McAlester Storage & Commission Co., 150 Ac. 483].

2 Gartner v. Hand, 86 Ga. 558, 12 S. E. 878.