after stating the ease, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case' turns upon the question whether the correspondence. between these parties subsequent to the execution of the' contract of February 17, 1882, and the conduct of Bowman in that connection indicated a completed understanding between them, prior to the discovery of ore in paying quantities, that Patrick was to purchase Bowman’s interest.
The theory of the plaintiff in this connection is that Patrick, being present on the spot, and having the sole charge and management of the sinking of the shaft, was bound to keep the plaintiff advised of the progress of the work and the prospects of the mine, pending the negotiations for the purchase of his interest, and that, having failed to apprise him of the discovery of a large body of ore on the 31st.of August, the sale subsequently made was fraudulently procured and should be annulled. The defendants do not dispute the legal principle laid down by this court in Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70, that where or e partner is present in sole charge of the business, while the other is at a distance, in order to sustain a sale of the absent partner’s interest it must be made to appear that the price paid approximates a fair consideration for the thing purchased, and that all the information in the possession of the purchaser necessary to enable the seller to form a sound judgment of the value of what he sells should be communicated by the buyer to him. Defendants, however, claim, that the parties had reached an understanding as to the terms and conditions of the sale before the discovery of the ore, and that William F. Patrick was under no obligation to apprise plaintiff of this fact; that even if the plaintiff had a right to rescind- the sale, he did not act with sufficient promptness, and that his failure for four years to institute these proceedings should debar him from a recovery.
The nature of the defence in this case requires a statement somewhat in detail of the succession of events following the contract of February 17, 1882, and of the correspondence between the parties. Bowman seems to have left Leadville *415the day following the execution of the contract with the understanding that Patrick should remain there, and superintend the. opening of the shaft — in short, that he should be • the resident partner of the enterprise. He and Bowman were each to contribute one-half, and to have an equal interest in the venture. On March 25th, Bowman sold to James M. Patrick, brother of the defendant, William F., one-third of his half interest, in consideration of Patrick paying one-third of Bowman’s share of the cost of sinking the' shaft, Bowman agreeing to make all necessary advances for' the first-year, and Patrick agreeing to repay him the sums so advanced. Bowman did not return to Denver until early in May, having in the meantime received several lettérs from William -F. Patrick, giving a general idea of the progress of the work, and of certain litigation connected with the property.
At this time, Wilson claimed that he had introduced Bowman to Stebbins, and had been instrumental in procuring for Bowman the contract for an interest in the property, and that in fairness Bowman should let him have a share in this contract. Bowman assented to this, and assigned to Wilson a one-fourth interest. At this visit, too, a settlement seems to have been had in which it was agreed that Bowman would owe Patrick $288.70, if Wilson paid his assessment, and -$465 if he did not. And, as. Patrick says, “the understanding between Mr. Bowman and myself was that I was to draw for either $465 or $288.70.” Wilson’s time to pay would expire May 18th. On May 13th, Patrick drew on Bowman for $465. This draft was presented for payment on May 15th, when Bowman telegraphed to Patrick: “ Must know Wilson’s conclusion. Debates not satisfactory. Answer at once; ” and on the same day wrote to Patrick as follows: “ Wilson made a claim . . . for an interest in the Ool. Sellers and Accident. I yielded to his request. . . . He named the interest and promised his share of the money. You were to collect of - him, or forfeit his claim for non-payment. Your brother’s interest I agreed to carry,- and am willing to, but now you draw on me without collecting of Wilson or securing his relinquishment. This much I expected you to do. I have *416telegraphed you, but can get no answer. I leave in an hour for Chicago.”
The parties did not meet again until June 19th, when Patrick went to St. Louis to talk over the Col. Sellers matters, and "at this interview they had a settlement of their accounts up-to May 8th, in which a balance of $288.69 was found due from Bowman, for which he gave his note to Patrick, who had it discounted at once for its face. Of this $288.69, the sum of $245.75 was for James Patrick’s share of the expenses, which Bowman -was to advance for him, and for which amount James soon afterwards gave his note to Bowman.
In the meantime, and on May 11, Wilson had assigned his-interest to John Livezey. These assignments to James Patrick and Wilson left Bowman the owner of ten forty-eighths of the contract, or five forty-eighths of the entire property, which was the interest he subsequently conveyed to William. P. Patrick. TJp to the time of this interview of June 19th,. nothing, apparently, had been said with reference to a sale.. But at the time of this settlement, it seems that Bowman, who appeared despondent, suggested to Patrick that he thought he only ought to do a little work every- ten days as-specified in the contract, to prevent its becoming forfeited, and that that would keep it alive, Patrick says: “He made-me a proposition at that time, as I remember, after I secured this note, if I would surrender the note he would surrender all his right, title and interest under that contract to me, and I told him at the time that I had about all that I could carry, and I didn’t think I could afford to take it, but thought I knew a man out West who I thought would take it, and that-on my return I would speak to him in regard to it.”
At this interview Bowman told him that he was going to-leave in a few days for Bayfield, Wisconsin, and gave him that as his post-office address during the summer. Patrick started back for Leadville that evening, and on arriving at. Denver wrote Bowman at St. Louis, under date of June 22d, as follows : “ In regard to your interest in the Col. Sellers, I. think I.know a man who will pay the note you gave me, $288.69, and take your interest off your hands and let me go *417right ahead with the work, which I would very much like to-do. If you are willing to let it go on these terms, which is the same proposition you made me in your office, please telegraph me immediately and I will try and make the arrangement.”
On June 27th he wrote another letter in the following terms: “I would also like to have an answer with regard to the proposition I made you about the Col. Sellers, to return you your note and forfeit your share in the contract. There js a party here who will take it.” On the following day, June 28th, he wrote still another letter to this effect: “.Please let me know what we are to do in this new complication, and also about the Col. Sellers, as I' am anxious to continue work" on that property and see what is there.” These letters were all addressed to St. Louis, and were forwarded to Bayfield, Wisr consin, and as Bowman was then in the woods, he did not receive either of them until the 13th of July, when he received the one of June 22d, and at once telegraphed to Patrick: “Yours of June 22 received yesterday; proposition accepted; send note.” To this Patrick replied, under date of July 15th, by telegraph: “Acceptance too late. Proposition was dependent upon immediate acceptance in St. Louis. See my letter of fifth.” Bowman must have gone to St. Paul on this or the following day, since on July 16th he wrote Patrick the following letter: “When I came out of the woods I found your letter of June 22d waiting my answer, and I telegraphed you on the same day, accepting your proposition to surrender to you all my remaining interest in the property adjoining the A. Y. on your surrendering my note; and on a perusal of your subsequent letters received here at St. Paul to-day. I learn that is your wish; I do not complain of it. My judgment differs from yours as to the course to pursue, and I should not stand in your way, and will not; if you wish any papers signed, send and I will sign them. My address is Bayfield, Wis.”
Before Bowman received Patrick’s letters, and telegraphed his reply, Patrick claims that he wrote the following letter to Bowman on July 5th, addressed not to St. Louis or to Bayfield,, but to St. Paul:
*418“ Leadville, July 5, 1882.
“ Mr. Frank J. Bowman, Merchants’ Hotel, St. Paul, Minn.
“ Dear Sir : I send you a statement of all amounts paid on the Col. Sellers contract since our settlement from which you will see that the am’t due from you thereon is $952.32 for which am’t I will draw on you to-morrow. I wish to notify you and hereby do so, that if the draft is not paid that I will apply to Stebbins and Bobinson and their partners for a new contract in my own name. I have consulted an attorney here and am satisfied that we are obliged to continue the work in order to comply with our contract and that your plan of doing a little worjr every ten day^ would not be acting according its letter or spirit and would cause a forfeiture of the contract and loss of the am’t we have spent in sinking the first 100 feet. The same attorney also tells me that under our contract if you do not pay your proportion when called upon you forfeit your rights under said contract. I want to deal fairly with you and will tell you that in my opinion the shaft which is now 165 feet deep is looking very promising and I think we are not very far from the contact. My reasons for thinking so are that the porphyry is now heavily iron stained. Hope you will pay the draft-and that we may continue the work together but if you do not I will have to protect myself and will do so by taking a new contract as I have said.
“ I withdraw my offer to return your note of $288,70 dated June 19th 1882 in case you assign your interest in the contract to me.
“Tours truly W. F. Patrick.”
On the following day Patrick, drew upon Bowman for $952.32, which included the amount of James Patrick’s share of the expenses and also part of certain expenses for repairing-the shaft. The draft was mailed to the bank in St. Paul, and was returned to Patrick because Bowman ivas not at St. Paul. "We see no reason to doubt that this draft was drawn in good faith, with the expectation that it would be presented to .Bowman, though, as Patrick says, he did not think it would be paid, because of his conversation with Bowman at St. Louis *419on June 19th, when he expressed himself as dissatisfied with the way the work was going on. The letter of July 5th seems never to have been received.
On August 2d, defendant wrote Bowman as follows, evidently in reply to Bowman’s letter of the 16th of July: “Tours of the 16th ult. received. In accordance with your request therein, I send the within paper for your signature. I sold the note in St. Louis before getting your reply, so will have to wait until it matures, which will be September 19th.” ’'Enclosed in this letter was a memorandum of agreement, signed by William F. Patrick, reciting the contract of February 17th, 1882; the performance of considerable work in developing the lode; the unwillingness of Bowman to continue such work or to pay the costs;- the execution of the note of June 19th, 1882; and providing that, if Patrick should pay the note when it became due, Bowman would release to him all his right, title, and interest to the contract with the owners of the property, and would execute and deliver to Patrick a good and sufficient deed of conveyance of the same, Patrick agreeing to release Bowman from any liability under the contract.
In reply to this, and on August 28th, Bowman wrote to Patrick from his camp on Brule River, Wisconsin, as follows: “ I send you the contract you desire, and trust that this will settle our matters pleasantly and amicably. I have inserted a clause concerning your brother’s interest, but he may not care to retain it. My address will be St. Paul, until September 10th, then I shall return to'St. Louis and business. P.S.— Mails are slow here.”
With this letter was- a contract signed by Bowman, which was a substantial copy of- the one signed by Patrick, but containing a reservation for the use of Patrick’s brother. This contract, however, made it obligatory upon Patrick to pay the note, and gave him no option in that particular as was given in the contract enclosed in his letter to Bowman.
Having signed this contract, Bowman enclosed it in his letter of August 28th, and mailed it the same day’to Patrick at Leadville, where-it arrived after Patrick had left. It was forwarded to him at Knoxville, Tennessee, where he received *420it on September 'Tth. He made no reply, however, and there was no further correspondence between the parties.
On October 19, 1882, Bowman having returned to St. Louis, James Patrick went to Bowman’s office, aijd said he had called by request of his brother, to get him to execute a. deed to his brother for his interest in the Col. Sellers. The Patricks testify, that they were both present in Bowman’s office; that they talked over the matter of Bowman’s relations to James with regard to an interest in the contract; and that W. P. Patrick then agreed to take a conveyance of Bowman’s entire interest, to assume Bowman’s liability, and to advance James’ share of the expenses. This matter being settled, Bowman acknowledged and delivered a deed of his interest in the property. There is a dispute between Bowman and the Patricks as to whether the former made any inquiry of them as to whether any mineral had been discovered in the Col. Sellers shaft. It is clear they never mentioned the matter to him, and there is no doubt Patrick failed to inform Bowman of the discovery of a large body of ore that had been made in the last days of August: If, at that time, there was a completed understanding between them that Patrick was to buy out Bowman’s interest and release him from his liability upon the note, there was no obligation to make such disclosure. If, upon the other hand, no such understanding had been reached, it was then incumbent upon Patrick to inform Bowman of the progress of the work, before’ taking from him the deed of October 19th.
We think this question must be answered by referring to the correspondence between these parties, between June 19th and August 13th, upon which day the first indication of mineral was discovered in the shaft, the policy of suppressing all information was inaugurated.
The letter of June 22d must be read in connection with the conversation at St. Louis on June 19th, in which Bowman offered Patrick all his interest in the enterprise, if .Patrick would return the note Bowman had just given him. Patrick replied that he had already as much as he could carry, but upon his return to the West he would speak to a man whom *421be thought, might take the offer. Accordingly, in his letter of June 22d, he does, not offer to buy Bowman’s interest himself, but says: “ I think I know a man who will pay the note you gave me, $288.69, and take your interest off your hands. ... If you are willing to let it go on these’terms, which is the same proposition you made me in your office, please telegraph me immediately,-and I will try and make the arrangement.” Now, while it is true this is not upon its face a proposition to buy Bowman’s interest himself, but a mere promise to try and make an arrangement with another party, and a call upon Bowman to let him know whether such a proposition would be accepted if made, in reality we think it should be considered as a proposition made by Patrick himself, for the following reasons:
The man he had in mind was Col. Bissell of Leadville, whom he had not yet seen, and whom he had no good reason to believe would take- the property. It was a mere conjecture on his part. Before he wrote his next letter, he went on to Leadville, saw Col. Bissell, and “ spoke to him in regard to it, and he declined- to take it, and declined to take the interest and pay that nóte, and, as I told Bowman, I was carrying all I could.” Notwithstanding this, in his letter of June 27th, he says: “ I would also like to Time am a/nswer i/n regard to the proposition 1 made you about the Col. Sellers, to return you your, note amd forfeit your shme in the contraM. There is a party here who will take it.” And again on the 28th: “ Please let me know what we are to do . . . about the Col. Sellers, as.I am anxious to continue work on that property and see what is there.” Now, it does not clearly appear whether he had seen Col. Bissell or not when he wrote these two lettersj but in either case the letters were untrue, though they may have been written in good faith, and with the expectation that Col. Bissell would eventually take the interest ; but there was no party there who had given him any assurance that he would. Patrick was thereby placed in the position of holding himself out not only as the agent of an unknown principal, but of one whom he had no authority to represent. In such case his contract, though of course not *422binding upon any one else, is binding upon the agent, at least if the credit be given to such agent. Welch v. Goodwin, 123 Mass. 71; Worthington v. Cowles, 112 Mass. 30; Cobb v. Knapp, 71 N. Y. 348; Blakely v. Bennecke, 59 Missouri, 193; Eichbaum v. Irons, 6 W.& S. 67; Meech v. Smith, 7 Wend. 315; Winsor v. Griggs, 5 Cush. 210; Mechem on Agency, secs. 542, 550, 557.
In this case there is abundant evidence that the proposition contained in the three letters of June 22d, 27th, and 28th was .treated by both parties as the proposition of Patrick himself., In his attempted retraction of- July 5th, Patrick says: “ 1 withdraw my offer to return your note for $288.70, dated June 19, 1882, in case you assign your interest in the contract to me.” And in his letter of July 16th, Bowman says: “ When I came out of the woods I found your letter of June 22d, waiting my answer, and I telegraphed you on the same day accepting your proposition to surrender to you all my remaining interest in the property adjoining' the A. Y. on your surrendering my note.” Of this letter Patrick says: “I decided to accept the proposition contained in the letter, and instead of applying to the owners for a new contract ... I decided to accept the proposition which was contained in Bowman’s letter of July 16th. I had a contract prepared such as he indicated he would sign in that letter, . . . and I sent that contract to him by mail after signing it myself.” In his letter of August 2d, which was written before the discovery of ore, Patrick enclosed a contract for Bowman to sign, in which his own name is mentioned as grantee, and Bowman in his letter of August 28th also enclosed a draft of his own, in which also Patrick is' named as grantee. So, too, in his letter of September 2d, Patrick says ;■ “ I sent you from Leadville an agreement concerning the Gol. Sellers, in which I agreed to pay that note, $288.70, and you relinquish all rights under the agreement.” The matter was finally consummated on October 19th, by a deed direct from Bowman .to Patrick of his interest in the mine. Indeed, there is not a word of testimony, except as gathered from the three letters written in June, that the proposition was other than: *423that of Patrick himself. Por these reasons we think the offer should be considered as one made by Patrick to take Bowman’s interest in the mine, and release him from his liability upon the note.
The letter of June 22d, which was addressed to Bowman at St. Louisj was forwarded to Bayfield, 'Wis., and reached him in the woods at a distance from a telegraph office. He proceeded at once to Ashland, Wis., the nearest telegraph station, and on July 13th telegraphed .Patrick as follows: “Yours of June 22d received yesterday; proposition accepted; send note.” To this Patrick replied by telegraph, sent both to St. Louis and Ashland, as follows: “ Acceptance' too late. Proposition was dependent upon immediate acceptance in St. Louis. See my letter of the 5th.” In view of the fact that Patrick was informed when in St. Louis, June 19th, that Bowman was about starting for the woods for the summer, and that his letters of June 22d, 27th, and 28th were sent to St. Louis, where he must have known that Bowman had gone, we do not think the acceptance was too late, although it might have been otherwise had the circumstances been such that a prompt reply must have been expected. After having sent this telegram, and before receiving the reply, Bowman left Ashland, and went to St. Paul, where he received the letters of June 27th and 28th, and answered them by his letter of July 16th, renewing Ms acceptance of the proposition he had already made by telegram. The tone of this letter' certainly indicates that he had not received Patrick’s telegram of July 15th when he wrote it. Indeed, it is improbable that he should have done so, as one copy of that telegram was .sent to St. Louis and another to Ashland, after Bowman had left there.
These letters and telegrams, taken together, indicate a complete understanding. between these parties that Bowman should sell out his interest in the mine to Patrick on condition that the latter released him from liability upon the note. It is true the letter of June 22d contained no definite proposition, but a mere offer by Patrick to see if he could find a purchaser, and hence Bowman’s telegram of July 13th might not *424be construed as binding Patrick to anything; yet the letter of June 27th did contain, or at least recognize a proposition as coming. from Patrick himself, and Bowman’s answer thereto of July 16th, construed in connection with his telegram, was a distinct acceptance of such proposition. Nor is this' understanding affected by Patrick’s attempted revocation of the offer in his letter of July 5th. Bowman denies that he ever received this letter, and as there is no direct evidence that he did, his denial must be accepted as conclusive. Under such circumstances the revocation is of no avail to release either p%rty from the obligations of his contract. The authorities are' abundant to the proposition that when an offer is made and accepted by the posting of a letter of acceptance, before notice of withdrawal is received, the contract is not impaired by the fact that a revocation had been mailed before the letter of acceptance. Thus, in the case of Tayloe v. Merchants’ Fire Insurance Co., 9 How. 390, in which the point decided was that a contract by correspondence- was completed when the party to whom the promise was made placed a letter in the post-office accepting the terms, Mr. justice Nelson, in delivering the opinion of the court, said (p. 400): “We are of opinion that an offer under the circumstances stated, prescribing the terms of insurance, is intended, and is to be deemed a valid undertaking on the part of the company, that they will be bound' according to the terms tendered, if an answer is transmitted in due course of mail, accepting them; and that it cannot be withdrawn unless the withdrawal reaches the party to whom it is addressed before his letter of reply announcing the acceptance- has been transmitted.” This case was cited and followed in Byrne v. Van Tienhoven, 5 C. P. D. 344, and Stephenson v. McLean, 5 Q. B. D. 346. Other cases to the same effect are Adams v. Lindsell, 1 B. & Ald. 681; Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. Cas. 381; Harris’ case, L. R. 7 Ch. 587; The Palo Alto, 2 Ware, 343; Wheat v. Cross, 31 Maryland. 99.
There is, indeed, in a case of this kind some reason for urging that -the party making the revocation should be estopped to claim that his attempted withdrawal was not *425binding upon himself; but this could not be done without infringing upon the inexorable rule that one party to a contract cannot be bound unless the other be also, notwithstanding that the principle of mutuality thus applied may enable a. party to take advantage of the invalidity of his own act. •
It is quite evident that Bowman himself regarded this as a settlement of his rights under his contract with Patrick, leaving only the details to be arranged between them. His conduct from this time indicates a clear intention on his part to abandon any further interest in the property. It is evident that he intended to make no further claim upon Patrick, and it is equally clear that Patrick could have sustained no. further action against him for the expenses of sinking the shaft. Indeed, the testimony leaves it doubtful whether Bowman ever contributed anything more than a nominal • amount of money to the enterprise. At the interview in St. Louis on June 19th there seems to have been a settlement had by him up to May 8th, in which Patrick claimed of him $552.93, three-eighths of the expenses up to May 8th, which was reduced to $288.69, by a credit of some $264.24, claimed by Bowman against Patrick, for which amount, less $264.24, he gave his note. He seems neither to have paid nor settled for any portion of the money expended by Patrick since May 8th, ($603.75,) nor to have given any assurances that the additional liabilities to be incurred would be met by him. He said that he was “hard up;” could not settle' the expenses incurred since May 8th; asked Patrick to wait for him as a matter of accommodation; and suggested that only a little work should be done every ten days on the shaft — just enough to save a forfeiture of their contract. He not "only made no provision for the payment of his note of June 19th, or of the further expenses which he must have known would be required, but apparently took no further interest in the sinking of the shaft; and manifested in his letter of July 16th a willingness to sign any papers Patrick might send him, and. subsequently did sign a release of his interest to Patrick. There is much dispute ‘between the parties as to whether Bowman made any inquiries with regard to the progress of the work on October *42619th; but it is scarcely presumable that he would have signed the deed at that time, without instituting very careful inquiries with regard to the work,, unless he had treated the matter as abandoned—since from the time that had elapsed he must have known that it was either a success or a failure. In a subsequent conversation with “Wilson he said that his reason for selling out to Patrick was that he was not able to carry the assessments. He made substantially the same statement to James Patrick, ando added that, even if he had had money enough, the constant fear of litigation and “ jumpers ”. would have' caused him to sell out,, and wished him to express his congratulations to his brother upon the -success of the enterprise.
In short, he gave no further attention to the matter for four years, when, from some letters between members of the defendant’s family, which fell into his hands, he was apprised of the fact that a large body of ore had been discovered about the 31st of August, the knowledge of which Patrick had concealed from him. . Conceding that if the negotiations had then been open, it would have been Patrick’s duty to inform his partner of all that had taken place, he was under no obligation to do so if the contract were complete. He might well be reluctant to give him information which would only lead to disputes and litigation.
In the view we have taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary to consider the conduct of Patrick after August 13th, in suppressing the information with regard to the discovery of. the ore, or the question of' laches which the defendant urges with so much earnestness.
The decree of the court below will, therefore, be
Reversed, and the ease remanded, with insi/ruetions to dismiss the bill.