
    James A. Coad, Appellant, v. U. C. Rogers.
    Offer to Sell: acceptance: Contracts. Plaintiff wrote to defendant, offering to sell to lrim a stock of drugs, and received in reply the following letter: “Your letter received this a. m. will be there Wednesday or Friday. If not, I will write you, stating when I can. Would like to have possession on November 1st. You can make invoice of the goods as you sell them, and then I could get in the April term of court for a permit." Held, that the letter did not constitute a binding acceptance.
    
      
      Appeal from Gherolcee District Court. — FIon. J. F. Oliver, J udge.
    Friday, January 31, 1902.
    The petition alleges that the parties entered into a written contract, through the correspondence which follows, for the sale of a stock of drugs at Washta:
    “Washta, Iowa, October 25th, 1898. Mr. J. A. Ooad, Hull, Iowa — Dear Sir: I have been thinking the matter over since you left. Well, when you was here last winter there was $1,500.00 against the stock, but now there is only $1,000.00 against it now. If you arrange so I could get $2,000.00 in cash, I will take the $3,000.00 for the stock, and guaranty it will invoice $4,500.00. I think you could arrange with the bank for $1,500.00, the same as I did, and make monthly payments. It’s quite a cut, but there is a drag store for sale in my old home, and I can get it reasonable, as the druggist died not long ago, and my folks are anxious to have me come and run the store. I have just made arrangements with Dr. Rallah to fill all of his prescriptions. He has a good practice. Yours truly, U. C. Rogers.”
    “Hull, Iowa, October 29th. U. O. Rogers. Washta, Iowa — Dear Sir: Your letter received this a. m.- Will be there on Wednesday or Friday. If not, will write you, stating time when can. Would like to have possession on November 1st. You can make invoice of goods as you sell them, and then I could get in the April term of court for'a permit- Sincerely yours, James A. Coad.”
    The defendant refused to complete the transaction, because of which plaintiff suffered damages. The demurrer of defendant, in effect, that these letters did not constitute a contract, was sustained; and, as plaintiff elected to stand on the ruling, the petition was dismissed, and he appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      
      J. D. F. Smith for appellant.
    
      E. G. Herrick for. appellee.
   Ladd, C. J.

A direct acceptance is not contained in the letter of Co ad, and is not necessarily to be implied therefrom. Apparently any committal on his part was studiously avoided. It was precisely such a communication as would be made in order to retain the opportunity without deciding to accept. Analyzed, his letter no more than (1) acknowledges the receipt of Roger’s letter; (2) mentions dates when he may be in Washta; (3) expresses a wish to have possession November 1st; and (4) suggests an arrangement by which he might obtain a permit — presumably to sell intoxicating 1'iquors — in six months thereafter. There is undoubtedly an intimation running through the letter of the probability of purchasing, but nothing binding on the writer. “The language of the acceptance should be. such as would leave no avenue of escape for the party using it; for the obligation of a contract, to be binding, must be mutual. If the acceptor does not bind himself by the language of the acceptance, no contract will be created bind-' ing the other party.” Goodenow v. Barns, 40 Iowa, 561.— Affirmed.  