In many of the states, perhaps a majority, an acceptance of the conveyance by the grantee named therein has been stated to be essential to its validity.5 And it has accordingly been decided in a number of cases that the conveyance is not effective as against the claim of a third person which accrued, by reason of attachment, recovery of a judgment, or purchase for value, between the time of delivery of the instrument and the grantee's subsequent assent thereto.6 v. Hastings, 202 N. Y. 115, 94 N. E. 1068; Crooks v. Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610; Stephens v. Rine-hart, 72 Pa. St. 434; Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Utah, 169, 89 Pac. 643; Ladd v. Ladd, 14 Vt. 185.

3. Per Hosmer, C. J., in Stewart v. Stewart, 5 Conn. 317.

4. Ante, Sec. 461, note 59.

5. Russell v. May, 77 Ark. 89, 90 S. W. 617; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 56 Am. Rep. 726; Knox v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 356, 62 Pac. 334; Stallings v. Newton, 110 Ga. 875, 36 S. E. 227; Hulick v. Scovil, 9 111. 159; Abernathie v. Rich, 256 111. 166, 99 N. E. 883; Woodbury v. Fisher, 20 Ind. 387, 83 Am. Dec. 325; Kyle v. Kyle, 175 Iowa, 734, 157 N. W. 248; Alexander v. De Kermely, 81 Ky. 345; Cates v. Cates, 152 Ky. 47, 153 S. W. 10; Houlton v. Houlton, 119 Md. 180, 86 Atl. 514; Meigs v. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217, 52 N. E. 75; Watson v. Hillman, 57 Mich. 607, 24 N. W. 663; Miller v. Mccaleb, 208 Mo. 562. 106 S. W. 655; Rennebaum v. Rennebaum, 78 N. J. Eq. 507, '79 Atl. 309, 79 N. J. Eq. 654, 83 Atl. 1118; Arnegaard v. Arnegaard, 7 N. D. 475, 41 L. R. A. 258, 75 N. W. 797; Couch v. Addy, 35 Okla. 355, 129 Pac. 709; Larisey v. Larisey, 93 S. C. 450, 77 S. E. 129; Reid v. Gorman, 37 S. D. 314, 158 N. W. 780; Kempner v. Rosenthal, 81 Tex. 12, 16 S. W. 639; Welsh v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243.

6. Parmelee v. Simpson, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 81; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 56 Am. Rep. 726; Knox v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 356, 62 Pac. 334; Evans v. Colea conveyance was effective at common law although the transferee did not assent thereto or even know thereof, he always having, however, the right to "disclaim," that is, to repudiate the conveyance and thereby revest the title in the grantor.7 Such is the rule in England at the present day.8 And in spite of the constant assertion and reassertion by the courts in this country of the necessity of acceptance, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in a number of states the rule in this regard is the same as in England, that no acceptance of the conveyance is necessary, though the grantee may, if he choose, dissent and disclaim.8a That no acceptance is necessary appears to be involved in the statement, made with great frequency, that, provided the conveyance can be regarded as beneficial in character, and as not involving any burden on the grantee, his acceptance will be presumed in the absence of any showing of dissent,9 man, 101 Ga. 152, 28 S. E. 645; Partridge v. Chapman, 81 111. 137; Woodbury v. Fisher, 20 Ind. 387, 83 Am. Dec. 325 (but see Emmons v. Harding, 162 Ind. 154, 1 Ann. Cas. 864, 70 N. E. 142); Day v. Griffith, 15 Iowa, 104; Bell v. Farmers' Bank of Kentucky, 11 Bush (Ky.) 34, 21 Am. Rep. 205; Simpson v. Yocum, 172 Ky. 449, 189 S. W. 439; Field v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 606, 32 N. E. 838; Kuh v. Garvin, 125 Mo. 547, 28 S. W. 847; Fischer Leaf Co. v. Whipple, 51 Mo. App. 181; Rogers v. Heads Iron Foundry, 51 Neb. 52, 37 L. R. A. 433; Derry Bank v. Webster, 44 N. H. 264; Kempner v. Rosenthal, 81 Tex. 12, 16 S. W. 639; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243.

7. Litt. Sec.Sec. 684, 685; Butler & Baker's Case, 3 Co. Rep. 260; Thompson v. Leach, 2 Vent. 198;

Sheppard's Touchstone, 284. See Skipwith's Ex'r v. Cunningham, 8 Leigh (Va.) 272.

8. Siggers v. Evans, 2 El. & Bl. 367; Standing v. Bowring. 31 Ch. D. 286; Mallott v. Wilson (1903), 2 Ch. 494. See article on the nature of disclaimer by F. E. Farrer, Esq., in 32 Law Quart. Rev. 83.

8a. See editorial note, 19 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 612; Harrl-man, Contracts, (2d Ed.) Sec.Sec. 82, 83.

9. Arrington v. Arlington, 122 Ala. 510, 26 So. 152; Graham v. Suddeth, 97 Ark. 283, 133 S. W. 1033; De Levillian v. Edwards, 39 Cal. 120; Merrills v. Swift. 18 Conn. 257, 46 Am. Dec. 315; Moore v. Giles, 49 Conn. 570; Baker v. Hall, 214 111. 364, 73 N. E. 351; Bremmerman v. Jennings, 101 Ind. 253; Emmons v. Harding, 162 Ind. 164, 70 N. E 142; Pod2 R. P. - 38 and this though he is in entire ignorance of the conveyance.10 Such a statement represents a tendency, which appears to be open to criticism,11 to express rules of substantive law in the form of rules of presumption, a mode of expression which is particularly objectionable when, as in this case, the thing presumed to exist is a thing which concededly does not exist. If there is no acceptance, no rule of law, whether or not designated a presumption, can create an acceptance. And the only conclusion, it is submitted, to be drawn from the decisions upholding a beneficial conveyance even in the abhajsky's Estate, 137 Iowa, 745, 115 N. W. 596; Gideon v. Gideon, 99 Kan. 322, 161 Pac. 595; Jefferson County Building Ass'n v. Heil, 81 Ky. 513; Houlton v. Houlton, 119 Md. 180, 86 Atl. 514; Ingersoll v. Odendahl, 136 Minn. 428, 162 N. W. 525; Metcalfe v. Brandon, 60 Miss. 685; Ensworth v. King, 50 Mo. 477; Jones v. Swayze, 42 N. J. L. 279; Rennebaum v. Rennebaum, 78 N. J. Eq. 427, 79 Atl. 309, 79 N. J. Eq. 654, 83 Atl. 1118; Spencer v. Carr, 45 N. Y. 406, 6 Am. Rep. 112; Ten Eyck. v. Whitbeck, 156 N. Y. 341, 50 N. E. 963; Lynch v. Johnson, 171 N. C. 611, 89 S. E. 61; Arne-gaard v. Arnegaard, 7 N. Dak. 475, 41 L. R. A. 258, 75 N. W. 797; Shaffer v. Smith, 53 Okla. 352, 156 Pac. 1188 (voluntary deed); In re Braley's Estate, 85 Vt. 351, 82 Atl. 5; Guggenheimer v. Lockridge, 39 W. Va. 457, 19 S. E. 874. In Ward v. Ritten-house Coal Co., 152 Ky. 228, 153 S. W. 217, it is said that acceptance is not to be implied or presumed if the grantee is competent and is present in person. 10. Elsberry v. Boykin, 65 Ala.

336; Gulf Red Cedar Co. v. Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606, 53 So. 812; Russell v. May, 77 Ark. 89, 90 S. W. 617; Tibballs v. Jacobs, 31 Conn. 428; Graham v. Suddeth, 97 Ark. 283, 133 S. W. 1033; Burch v. Nicholson, 157 Iowa, 502, 137 N. W. 1066; Wuester v. Folin, 60 Kan. 334, 56 Pac. 490; Clark v. Creswell, 112 Md. 339, 21 Ann. Cas. 338, 76 Atl. 579; Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. Eq. 56, 21 Atl. 627; Everett v. Everett, 48 N. Y. 218; Munoz v. Wilson, 111 N. Y. 295, 18 N. E. 855; Robbins v. Roscoe, 120 N. C. 79, 38 L. R. A. 238, 58 Am. St. Rep. 774; Mitchell's Lessee v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377.