Union National Bank of Chicago v. Miller

Citations

• 11 S.E. 321
• 106 N.C. 347

Syllabus

<p>Telegram — Attachment— Complete Control — Acceptance—Judge’s Charge.</p> <p>1. To a telegram offering to sell certain goods, a reply was made naming the terms of acceptance, and adding: “ Must have reply early to-morrow.” The reply closing the sale came and was delivered late in the afternoon, and after a levy of attachment had been made upon the goods. The Court below held that the contract was complete when the telegram was sent from Chicago, and that the title to the property passed before the conversion of attachment, and so charged the jury: Held, to be error, it not appearing that the telegram was sent “ early” in the day.</p> <p>2. As to whether the time of receiving or the time of sending the telegram should govern, quere 9</p> <p>3. When a definite time is named by the proposer for the acceptance of his proposition, it comes to an end of itself if not accepted within that time.</p>