By the great weight of authority, an option contract for the purchase of real estate based on a valuable consideration is assignable,21 and the assignee may compel the owner to specifically perform the contract.22

On the other hand, an option to purchase land may, by express language, be limited to the optionee, in which case he cannot, by an assignment, substitute in his stead any other person,23 and there are cases holding an option contract unassignable on account of the personal elements entering into the transaction.24

Sec. 253. Time Of Exercising Option Contract

Time is of the essence of an option contract, and the prospective purchaser must act strictly within the period limited and communicate his acceptance to the owner before its expiration.25

160 S. W. 725; Farday Coal Co. v. Owens, 26 Ky. Law Reps. 243, 80 S. W. 1171; Axe v. Tolbert, 179 Mich. 556, 146 N. W. 418.

21. Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111. 216; Wilkins v. Hardaway, 159 Ala. 565, 48 S. 678; Strasser v. Steck, 216 Pa. St. 577, 66 Atl. 87; Kreut-zer v. Lynch, 122 Wise. 474, 100 N. W. 887; Cameron v. Shumway, 149 Mich. 634, 113 N. W. 287; Contra-Wheeling Creek Gas, Coal & Coke Co. v. Elder, 170 Fed. 215; Rease v. Kittle, 56 W. Va. 269, 49 S. E. 150.

22. Soffrain v. McDonald, 27 Ind. 269; House v. Jackson, 24 Ore. 89, 32 Pac. 1027.

23. Andrew v. Myerdirck, 87 Md. 511, 40 Atl. 175; Meyers v. Stone. 128 Iowa 10, 102 N. W. 507, 111 Am. St. Reps. 180, 5 Ann. Cases 912.

24. Rice v. Gibbs, 40 Neb. 264, 58 N. W. 724; Snow v. Nelson, 113 Fed. 353; Menger v. Ward, 87 Tex. 622, 30 S. W. 853.

25. Tattan v. Bryant, 198 Mich. 515, 165 N. W. 778; Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va. 736, 8 S. E. 743; Sten-bridge v. Stenbridge, 87 Ky. 91, 7 S. W. 611; Longworth v. Mitchel, 26 Ohio St. 334; Smith v. Fleeks, App. 69 Pa. St. 474; Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 11 Atl. 284, 6 Am. St. Reps. 417; Bostwick v. Hess, 80 111. 138; Richardson v. Hartwick, 106 U. S. 252; Dyer v. Duffy, 39 W. Va. 148, 19 S. E. 540, 24 L. R. A. 339; Vassault v. Edwards, 43 Calif. 458; Weiss v. Cla-born, 219 S. W. 884; Hughes v. Hol-liday, 149 Ga. 147, 99 S. E. 301; Saraceno v. Carrano, 92 Conn. 563, 103 Atl. 631.

If no specific time is mentioned in the option contract, the optionee must exercise his right of election within what, under all the circumstances of the particular case, would be a reasonable time.26

Acceptance may be made on the last day of the time specified,27 and the option expires on the date specified without any action on the part of the owner of the land, and it is not necessary for him to give notice of forfeiture to the optionee.28

The sale of the land need not be completed within the time limited for acceptance, unless expressly required by the terms of the option contract, time being of the essence of the option as to the acceptance or election, as it is usually called, but not as to its performance, and if an election is duly made within the allotted time, the parties are entitled to a reasonable time expressed but may be proved aliunde.29