In the absence of evidence that a letter was stamped before mailing, no presumption arises as to its receipt ; Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647, 31 S. W. 938 ; but when one alleges that he duly mailed a letter, the court will presume that the requirements of the law as to stamping, etc., were complied with ; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 80 Fed. 337, 25 C. C. A. 453. The question of the receipt of the letter is for the jury ; Whitmore v. Ins. Co., 148 Pa. 405, 23 At]. 1131, 33 Am. St. Rep. 838; Briggs v. Hervey, 130 Mass. 186 ; Hastings v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 473, 34 N. E. 289 ; Lee v. Indemnity Union, 135 Mich. 291, 97 N. W. 709. See PRESUMrTION.
Contract by letter. The rule that a con tract is complete at the instant whefi the minds of the parties meet is subject to modi fication where the negotiation is carried on by letter, for it is in that case impossible that both parties should have knowledge of the moment it becomes complete. The offer and acceptance cannot occur at the same mo ment of time ; nor can the meeting of the minds of the parties on the subject be known by each at the moment of concurrence. The acceptance must succeed the offer after the lapse of some interval of time, and if the process is to be carried further in order to complete the bargain, a notice of the accept ance must be received ; the only effect is to reverse the position of the parties, changing the knowledge of the completion from one party to the other ; Benj. Sales § 69. When an offer is made by letter, it is presumed to continue during such period as is determin ed by or is reasonable with regard to, the terms of the offer, or until notice of its re call has reached him to whom the offer is made ; 1 B. & Ald. 681; 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 80 ; even if, through fault of the sender, the let ter containing the offer is delayed ; Mactier's Adm'rs v. Frith, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 103, 21 Am. Dec. 262 ; Averill v. Hedge, 12 Conn. 436•; provided the offer is standing at the time of the acceptance ;•Mactier's Adm'rs v. Frith, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 104, 21 Am. Dec. 262 ; and where'a proposal is made by letter, the mail ing of a letter containing an acceptance of the proposal completes the contract; Mac tier's Adm'rs v. Frith, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 104, 21 Am. Dec. 262 ; 1 B. & Ald. 681; 1 H. L. Cas. 381; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 5 Pa. 339 ; Tayloe v. Ins. Co., 9 How. (U. S.) 390, 13 L. Ed. 187; Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411,
13 Sup. Ct. 811, 866, 37 L. Ed. 790; Ferrier Rep. 752; Bryant v. Booze, 55 Ga. 438 ; ham v. Stockham, 32 Md. 196; Blake v. Ins. Co., 67 Tex. 163, 2 S. W. 368, 60 Am. Rep.
15
Washburn v. Fletcher, 42 Wis. 152 ;
ry v. Iron Co., 15 R. I. 380, 5 Atl. 632, 2 Am.
St. Rep. 902; Darlington Iron Co. v. Foote, 16 Fed. 646 ; L. R. 7 Ch. 587; 20 Q. B. Div. 640 ; although the acceptance may be de layed or may not be received through fault of the mail ; Tayloe v. Ins. Co., 9 How. (U. S.) 390, 13 L. Ed. 187; Trevor v. Wood, 36 N, Y. 307, 93 Am. Dec. 511; Abbott v. Shep ard, 48 N. H. 14; Hutcheson v. Blakeman, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 80; Levy v. Cohen, 4 Ga. 1; Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 99, 1 Am. Rep. 28; Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N. E. 665, 42 Am, St. Rep'. 437; and this seems to be the general rule both in this country and in England, although it has been held that the contract is not complete until-the letter of acceptance has been received by the party who makes the offer ; McCulloch v. Ins. Co., 1 Pick.
The acceptance must be unconditional and in accordance with the terms of the offer and within the time prescribed by the offer ; Beaupre v. Telegraph Co., 21 Minn. 155; Jen ness v. Iron Co., 53 Me. 20; Chicago & G. E. By. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Baker v. Johnson County, 37 Ia. 186; Allen v. Kirwan, 159 Pa. 612, 28 Atl. 495 ; even where the offer called, for reply by return mail, compli ance was held essential; Maclay v. Harvey, 90 Ill. 525, 32 Am. Rep. 35; Sawyer v. Bros sart, 67 Ia. 678, 25 N. W. 876, 56 Am. Rep. 371; and where in answer to a letter of pro posal, the accepting party merely writes that he is willing to make arrangements on the terms proposed, it was held to be not an un conditional acceptance ; Commercial Tele gram Co. v. Smith, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 494; Mar tin v. Fuel Co., 22 Fed. 596.