Assent

Approval of something done. An undertaking to do something In compliance with a requestin strictness, assent is to be distinguished from consent, which denotes a will about to be done, be done;, compliance with, or receipt of, something offered; rendering valid something done without autl and approval, an expression of satisfaction with some act done for the benefit of anoth i party approving. But in practice th<: t« rm i ui the sense of acceptance and approval. Thus, an offer is said to be assented to, although ly an offer and acceptance complete an agreement, it is apprehi nded that this confusion has arisen from the fact that a request, assent, and concurrence of the party requesting complete a conas fully as an offer and acceptance. Thus, it is said there must be a request on one side, and assent on the other, in every contract; 5 Bingh. N. c. 75; and this assent becomes a promise enforceable by the party requesting, when he has done anything to entitle him to the right. Assent thus becomes in reality (so far as it is assent merely, and not acceptance) an offer made in I > a request. Assent and approval, as applied to acts of parliament and of congress, have become confounded from the fact that the bills of parliament were originally requests from parliament to the king.

See 1 Bla. Com. 183.

Express assent is that which is openly declared. Implied assent is that which is presumed by law. Unless express dissent is shown, acceptance of what it is for a person's ben< take, is presumed, as in the case of a conveyance of land; 3 B. & Aid. 31; Harrison v. Trustees, 12.Mass. 4<:i, Pearse v. Owens, 3 N. C. 234; Treadwell v. Bulkley, 4 (Conn.) 395, 4 Am. Dec 225; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 184; Church \ man, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 656, 30 Am. De the assent (or acceptance) of the grantee to the delivery of a deed by a person other than the grantor, vests the title in him from the time of the delivery by the grantor to that.third person; O'Kelly v. O'Kc Ily, S Met.. (Mass.) 436; Hulick v. Scoril, 4 Gilm. (111.) 176; Buffuni v. Green, 5 N. II.

71. 20 Am. Dec. 502; Belden v. Carter, 4 Day (Conn.) G6, 4 Am. Dec. 185; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 187; Wesson v. Stephens.

37 N. C. 557; 5 B. & C. 671; a devise which draws after it no charge or risk of loss, is presumed to have Icon accepted by the devisee; Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 7.".; Hannah v. Swarner, 8 Watts (Pa.) f», 34 Am. Dec. 442. Assent must be to the same thing done or offered in the same sense; Matlock v. Thompson, 18 Ala. 605: Keller v. Ibarra, 3 Cal. 147; Eliason v. Ilenshaw, 4 Wheat (U. S.) 225, 4 L-. Ed. 550; 5 M. & W. 575; it must comprehend the whole of the proposition, must be exactly equal to its extent and provisions, and must not Qualify them by any new matter; 5 M. & W. 535; Slaymaker v. Irwin, 4 W'hart. (Pa.) 369; Vassal v. Camp, 11 N. Y. 441. In general, when an assignment is made Ex'r v. Cunningham, 8 Leigh (Va.) 272, 281, 31 Am. Dec. 642.

But see Crosby v. Hillyer, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 280; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243.

See Acceptance; Accord; Agreement; Contract.