29 Noyes v. Wyekoff, 114 N. Y. 204, 21 N. E. 158; Abshire v. Corey, 113 Ind. 484, 15 N. E. 685; People's Sav. Bank v. Borough of Norwalk, 56 Conn. 547, 16 Atl. 257; Tillou v. Britton. 9 N. J. Law, 120; Hubbard v. Bank, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 88. See "Tender," Dee. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 11, 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 20, 29-32.

30 Leask v. Dew, 102 App. Div. 529, 92 N. Y. Supp. 891. While the creditor may require legal tender money, a tender in other lawful money of the United States is sufficient, if not objected to on the ground of its not being legal tender. Edmunds Electric Const. Co. v. Mariotte, 162 Ind. 329, 69 N. E. 396. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 20-32.

31 Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592, 78 N. W. 288. See "Tender, Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-32.

32 Barbour v. Hickey, 2 App. D. C. 207, 24 L. R. A. 763. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-32.

33 Beatty v. Miller, 47 Ind. App. 494, 94 N. E. 897; Neal v. Finley, 136 Ky. 346, 124 S. W. 348; Kollitz v. Equitable Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 Minn. 234, 99 N. W. 892; Gunby v. Ingram, 57 Wash. 97, 106 Pac. 495, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232; McGrath v. Gegner, 77 Md. 331, 26 Atl. 502, 39 Am. St. Rep. 415. And see Walsh v. Association, 101 Mo. 534, 14 S. W. 722; Gradle v. Warner, 140 111. 123, 29 N. E. 1118. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. §§ 39-46.

34 Hazard v. Loring. 10 Cush. (Mass.) 267; Hall v. Insurance Co., 57 Conn. 105, 17 Atl. 356; Parker v. Pettit, 43 N. J. Law, 512; Collier v. White. 67 Miss. 133, 6 South. 618; Matbis v. Thomas, 101 Ind. 119; Knight v. Abbott, 30 Vt. 577; Pinney v. Jorgenson, 27 Minn. 26, 6 N. W. 376; Larsen v. Breene, 12 Colo. 480, 21 Pac. 498; Guthman v. Keam, 8 Neb. 502, 1 N. W. 129; Behaly v. Hatch, Walk. (Miss.) 309, 12 Am. Rep. 570; Oakland Bank of Savings v. Applegarth, 67 Cal. 80, 7 Pac. 139, 476; Dungan v. Insurance Co., 46 Md. 469. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-32.

35 Walsh v. Colvin, 53 Wash. 309, 101 Pac. 1085. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-32.

36 Betterbee v. Davis, 3 Camp. 70; Robinson v. Cook, 6 Taunt. 336; Fridge v. State, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 103, 20 Am. Dec. 463; Weld v. Bank, 158 Mass. 339, 33 N. E. 519; Brandt v. Railroad Co., 26 Iowa, 114; Patnote v. Sanders, it is to pay, or by his agent, and not by a mere stranger or inter-meddler;37 and it must be made to the party entitled to receive payment, or to his duly-authorized agent;38 and it must be understood as a tender, and be absolute and unconditional.39 It has also been held that the tender must be made at a reasonably fit

41 Vt 66, 98 Am. Dec. 564; Patterson v. Cox, 25 Ind. 261; Perkins v. Beck, 4 Cranch C. C. 68, Fed. Cas. No. 10,984. A tender of 9 cents less than $584.32 due has been held insufficient. Rolfe v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 Me. 345, 76 Atl. 879. But failure to include three days' interest on $40, amounting to 2 cents, has been held immaterial, on the theory that the law does not consider trifles. Matzger v. Page, 62 Wash. 170, 113 Pac. 254. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 13; Cent. Dig. §§ 29-32.

37 Sinclair v. Learned, 51 Mich. 335, 16 N. W. 672; Kincaid v. School Disk, 11 Me. 188; Brown v. Dysinger, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 408; Mahler v. New-baur, 32 Cal.168, 91 Am. Dec. 571; McDougald v. Dougherty, 11 Ga. 570; Johnson v. Smock, 1 N. J. Law, 106. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. § 8.

38 Carman v. Pultz, 21 N. Y. 547; Wilson v. Doran, 110 N. Y. 101, 17 N. E. 688; Oatinan v. Walker, 33 Me. 67; King v. Finch, 60 Ind. 420; Mc-Iniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray (Mass.) 600; Conrad v. Trustees of Grand Grove, 64 Wis. 258, 25 N. W. 24; Billiot v. Robinson, 13 La. Ann. 529; Hoyt v. Byrnes, 11 Me. 475; Cropp v. Hambleton, Cro. Eliz. 48; Carmen v. Pultz, supra. Tender to one of several joint creditors sufficienk Oatman v. Walker, supra; Dawson v. Ewing, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 371; Flanigan v. Seelye, 53 Minn. 23, 55 N. W. 115. See "Tender," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7; Cent. Dig. §§ 9, 10, 22.

39 Hunter v. Warner, 1 Wis. 141; Potts v. Plais'ted, 30 Mich. 149; Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147, 7 N. W. 747, 38 Am. Rep. 361; Noyes v. Wyckoff, 114 N. Y. 204, 21 N. E. 158; Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513; Odum v. Railroad Co., 94 Ala. 488, 10 South. 222; Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 342, 35 Am. Dec. 569; Appeals of Forest Oil Co., US Pa. 138, 12 Atl. 442, 4 Am. St. Rep. 584; Rives v. Dudley, 56 N. C 12G, G7 Am. Dec. 231; Henderson v. Cass County, 107 Mo. 50, 18 S. W. 992; Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga. 555; Rose v. Duncan, 49 Ind. 2G9. Where the amount is disputed, an offer of less than the creditor claims, on condition that it be accepted in discharge of the debt, is not a valid tender, though no more than offered be due. Thomas v. Evans, 10 East, 101; Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 47; Thayer v. Brackett, 12 Mass. 450; Richardson v. Laboratory, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 42; Chapin v. Chapin (Mass.) 36 N. E. 746; Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339, 19 N. W. 101; Draper v. Hitt, 43 Vk 439, 5 Am. Rep. 292; MOORE v. NORMAN, 52 Minn. 83, 53 N. W. 809, 18 L. R. A. 359, 38 Am. St. Rep. 52G, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 376; Doty v. Crawford, 39 S. C. 1, 17 S. E. 377; Latham v. Hartford, 27 Kan. 249; Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 80 Ala. 571, 1 South. 202. Tender under protest, reserving right to dispute amount due, is good, if it does not impose conditions on creditor. Greenwood v. Sutcliffe [1892] 1 Ch. 1. Tender of amount due on a mortgage is not rendered invalid by fact that it is accompanied by condition that the mortgage be satisfied, since the condition is one which the mortgagee, on being paid, is bound to perform. Halpin v. Insurance Co.', 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482. Contra, Loring v. Cooke, 3