Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-604-Necessity-of-acceptance.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:16:43+00:00

Document:
38 Minn. 443, 38 N. W. 359; Terhune v. Oldis, 44 N. J. Eq. 146, 14 Atl. 638; Flint v. Phipps, 16 Ore. 437, 19 Pac. 543; Gorham's Adm'r v. Meacham's Adm'r, 63 Vt. 231, 13 L. R. A. 676, 22 Atl. 572; In re Goldville Mfg. Co., 118 Fed. 892.
80. Woodbury v. Fisher, 20 Ind. 387, 83 Am. Dec. 325; Wads-worth v. Barlow, 68 Iowa, 599: Bell v. Farmers' Bank of Kentucky, 11 Bush (Ky.) 34, 21 Am. Rep. 205; Dole v. Bodman, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 139; Oxnard v. Blake, 45 Me. 602; Field v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 606; Adams v. Johnson, 41 Miss. 258; Kuh v. Garvin, 125 Mo. 547, 28 S. W. 847; Mvnoz v. Wilson, 111 N. Y. 295, 18 N. E. 855; Alliance Milling Co. v.
Eaton, 86 Tex. 401, 24 L. R. A. 369, 25 S. W. 614; Griswold v. Case, 13 Wash. 623, 43 Pac. 876; Welsh v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243.
81. Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257, 46 Am. Dec. 315; Elsberry v. Boykin, 65 Ala. 336; Whitney v. Hale, 67 N. H. 385, 30 Atl. 417; Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co., 38 Ohio St. 300. Compare Lewis v. Farrell, 51 Conn. 216.
82. Breathwit v. Bank of For-dyce, 60 Ark. 26, 28 S. W. 511; Rhea v. Planter's Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Ark. 57, 90 S. W. 850; Washington v. Ryan, 5 Baxt. (Tenn.) 622; Atwood v. Marshall, 52 Neb. 173, 71 N. W. 1064.
84. Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N. E.
701; Whitney v. Hale, 67 N. H. 385.
85. Mills v. Miller, 109 Iowa, 688, 81 N. W. 169.
86. In re Guyer 69 Iowa, 585, '29 N. W. 826; Reynolds v. Black, 91 Iowa, 1, 58 N. W. 922.
87. Shelden v. Erskine, 78 Mich. 627, 44 N. W. 146. Contra, when the interests of the various mortgagees were antagonistic. Bell v. Farmers Bank, 11 Bush (Ky.) 34, 21 Am. Rep. 205.
88. 4 Kent Comm. 141; Teal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 242, 28 L. Ed. 415; Kelley v. Leachman, 2 Idaho, 1112; Harbison v. Lemon, 3 Blackf (Ind.) 51, 23 Am. Dec. 376; Ed-rington v. Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 353, 20 Am. Dec. 145; Bunker v. Barron, 79 Me. 62, 1 Am. St. Rep. 282; Chase's Case, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 206, 17 Am. Dec. 277; Ferris v. Wilcox, 51 Mich. 105, 47 Am. Rep. 551, 16 N. W. 252; Shep-pard v. Wagner, 240 Mo. 409, 144 S. W. 394, 145 S. W. 420; Smith v. Hoff, 23 N. D. 37, Ann. Cas., 1914 C 1072, 135 N. W. 722; Worley v. Carter, 30 Okla. 642, 121 Pac. 669; Colwell v. Woods, 3 Watts (Pa.) 188, 27 Am. Dec. 345; Van Oehsen v. Brown, 148 Wis. 236, 134 N. W. 377.
Atl. 498; Bearss v. Ford, 108 111. 16; Radford v. Folsom, 58 Iowa, 473, 12 N. W. 536; Bennock v. Whipple, 12 Me. 346, 28 Am. Dec. 186; Nugent v. Riley, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 117, 35 Am. Dec. 355; Lund v. Lund, 1 N. H. 39, 8 Am. Dec. 29; Lane v. Shears, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 433; Waters v. Crabtree, 105 N. C. 394, 11 S. E. 240. See Wilson v. Shoenberger's Ex'rs, 31 Pa. St. 295.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.