35 Kan. 447 | Kan. | 1886
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The right of possession to the clothing in controversy depends upon whether the proposition made to the plaintiffs by Moore & Weaver on November 16, 1884, was accepted and became a contract before the execution of the mortgages by Moore & Weaver to their creditors on the 15th day of December, 1884. It appears that the plaintiffs, who were engaged in the wholesale clothing business at Cincinnati,
The offer which was made was the result of correspondence through the mails, and as the dates of the letters indicate, they had been promptly answered and responded to by both the parties. Besides, the letter containing the proposal by its terms enjoined an early reply. It closes with the words, “ Hoping to hear from you soon,” etc. While the mode of acceptance was not indicated in the letter making the offer, the nature of the negotiations as well as the manner in which they were carried on, suggested not ■ only the desire and necessity for an early reply, but also that the parties making the offer would expect an answer through and by the usual course of the mails. It has been said that —
“ Where an individual makes an offer by post stipulating j for, or by the nature of the business having the right- to ex- \ pect, an answer by return post, the offer can only endure for •*454 a limited time, and the making of it is accompanied by the implied stipulation that the answer will be sent by return post. If that stipulation is not satisfied, the person making the offer is released from it.” (Maclay v. Harvey, 90 Ill. 525; Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. Cas. 387.)
In regard to the objections made to the findings of fact, it is enough to say that after an examination of the record, we think they conform to and are supported by the testimony.
Finding no error in- the record, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.