The notice must set forth the requisite facts and where necessary must advise the adversary party of the steps which the party who gives the notice proposes to take.1 Under clauses in a building contract which give the owner the right to terminate the contract and to proceed in two or more different ways upon giving notice to the contractor, the notice must indicate under which clause the owner proposes to act.2 If the notice of loss sustained in transportation is in writing, and if it gives to the carrier sufficient information with reference to the damage which the shipper claims was sustained by the goods to enable the carrier to protect himself by an investigation if he so desires, such notice is sufficient, since no particular form is required.3 Notice by telegram is sufficient if the telegram gives the requisite information to the shipper.4 If the shipper requires the agent of the carrier to note the fact of injury to the property upon the freight bill, this is held to be a sufficient notice,5 although in some jurisdictions the sufficiency of such notice is denied.6 A communication by the local agent of the carrier has been held to be a substantial compliance with a condition requiring notice;7 and so has a report of damage made by the inspector of the carrier and filed by the consignee.8 A memorandum on a freight receipt, which probably is delivered to the proper officials of the railway company by the inspecting agent of the carrier, has been held to be a sufficient notice.9 Letters written by the shipper, in which he sets up his claim, may be sufficient as a notice, although not intended as a formal notice.10 If the agent of the carrier has noted the condition of the goods on the freight receipt, and the shipper has given notice that he would file a claim for damages, such notice is sufficient, even though no formal notice is filed thereafter.11 An evi-dent clerical error as to date will not render a notice invalid.12 However, a notice that a certain shipment will be injured unless the carrier takes certain specified steps to prevent it, is not sufficient as a notice of damage.13 Under a statutory provision to the effect that notice of filing a claim should not be made a condition precedent,14 filing an action within the time limited for filing notice was held to be sufficient.15 If the option to rescind a contract in case of dissatisfaction is reserved to one party, his conduct in tendering what he has received under the contract and demanding what he has paid under the contract is sufficient notice of his election to exercise such option.16

11 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Murphy, 182 Ky. 136, 206 S. W. 268.

12 McElwain v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 101 Neb. 484, 1 A. L. R. 533, 163 N. W. 845.

13 McElwain v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 101 Neb. 484, 1 A. L. R. 533, 163 N. W. 845.

14 Dowling v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 108 S. Car. 186, 93 S. E. 863.

15 See Sec. 737.

16 Southern Pac. Co. v. Stewart, 233 Fed. 956, 147 C. C. A. 630; Lusk v. Long, 127 Ark. 261, 192 S. W. 213.

17 Lusk v. Long, 127 Ark. 261, 192 S. W. 213; Patterson v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 24 Okla. 747, 104 Pac. 31.

18 Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 109 S. Car. 105, 95 S. E. 349.

19 Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 109 S. Car. 105, 95 S. E. 349.

20 Castner v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co., 89 Wash. 694, 155 Pac. 167.

21 Castner v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co., 89 Wash. 694, 155 Pac. 167.

1 Valente v. Weinberg, 80 Conn. 134, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 448, 67 Atl. 369.

If by its terms a contract may be terminated on thirty days' notice in writing of the intention so to do, a written notice which states that "we * * * as per terms of the contract, are notifying you 30 days in advance of our intention to terminate the contract," is sufficient. Emerson-Brant-ingham Co. v. Lyons, 102 Kan. 733, 172 Pac. 513.

2 Valente v. Weinberg, 80 Conn. 134, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 448, 67 Atl. 360.

3 United States. Georgia, F. & A. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 60 L. ed. 048.

Iowa. Emery v. Wabash R. Co., 183 Ia. 687, 166 N W. 600.

Michigan. Snyder v. King, 199 Mich. 345, 1 A. L. R. 803, 165 N. W. 840; Boyd v. King, 201 Mich. 436, 167 N. W. 001.

Mississippi. Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 116 Miss. 99, 76 So. 686.

Oklahoma. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt, - Okla. -, 171 Pac. 718.

Oregon. United Brokers' Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 86 Or. 607, 160 Pac. 114. •

4 Georgia, F. & A. Ry. Co. v. Blish

Milling Co., 241 U. S. 100, 60 L. ed. 048; Boyd v. King, 201 Mich. 436, 167 N. W. 001.

5 Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 116 Miss. 99, 76 So. 686.

6 Taft v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co, 174 N. Car. 211, 03 S. E. 752.

7 Snyder v. King, 100 Mich. 345, 1 A. L. R. 893, 165 N. W. 840.

8 United Brokers' Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 86 Or. 607, 160 Pac. 114.

9 Emery v. Wabash R. Co., 183 Ia. 687, 166 N. W. 600.

10 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pru-itt, - Okla. -, 171 Pac. 718.

11 Emery v. Wabash R. Co., 183 Ia. 687, 166 N. W. 600.

12 Baird v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 49 Utah 58, 162 Pac. 79.