As tender would amount to complete performance, if the offer were carried out, the requisites of a valid tender are indicated by the requisites of valid performance. There must be an un-conditional offer to perform, coupled with a manifested ability to carry out the offer, and a production of the subject-matter of the tender;66 the amount tendered must not be less than what is due;67 and if greater, there must be no demand for a return of the excess.68 The medium of payment must be that which the contract specifies or in the absence of contractual definition that which the law has made legal tender;69 the time must be that fixed by the contract or by law;70 it must not be before maturity;71 and the hour of the day must be reasonable.72 But at the present time in case of a liquidated debt a valid tender may be made subsequent to the day of maturity by adding legal interest to the amount of the debt.73

65 Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. 365, 377.

66 Camp v. Simon, 34 Ala. 126; Cothran v. Scanlan, 34 Ga. 655, 557; Angier v. Equitable Bldg. Ac. Assoc., 109 Ga. 625, 35 S. E. 64; Chase v. Welsh, 45 Mich. 345, 7 N. W. 895; Deering Harvester Co. v. Hamilton, 80 Minn. 162,83 N. W. 44; Lewis v. Mott, 36 N. Y. 395; Leask v. Dew, 102 N. Y. App. Div. 529, 92 N. Y. 8. 891; Hollar day v. Holladay, 13 Oreg. 523, 11 Pac. 260, 12 Pac. 821; Potter v. Thompson, 10 R. I. 1; Bowen v. Holly, 38 Vt. 574; Shank v. Groff, 45 W. Va. 543, 32 8. E. 248. In Iowa by statute an offer in writing is made the equivalent of actual production. Holt v. Brown, 63 la. 319, 19 N. W. 235.

67 Dixon v. Clark, 5 C. B. 365; Eber-sole v. Addington, 156 Ala. 575, 46 So. 849; Shafer v. Willis, 124 Cal. 36, 56 Pac. 635; Rauer's Law & Collection Co. v. Sheridan Proctor Co. (Cal. App.), 181 Pac. 71; Smith v. Pilcher, 130 Ga.

350, 60 S. E. 1000; Cheney v. Hood-house, 135 111. 257, 25 N. E. 1019; Shuck v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 73 Iowa, 333, 35 N. W. 429; Chapin v. Chapin (Mass.), 36 N. E. 746; Boyden v. Moore, 5 Mass. 365; Thurber v. Jewett, 3 Mich. 295; Kingsley v. Anderson, 103 Minn. 510, 115 N. W. 642, 116 N. W. 112; Graham v. Linden, 50 N. Y. 547; Equitable life Assur. Co. v. Von Glahn, 107 N. Y. 637, 13 N. E. 793; Barreda 0. Merchants' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 206 S. W. 726; Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66, 98 Am. Dec. 564.

In Krauss v. Potts, 53 Okla. 379,156 Pac. 1162, 5 A. L. R. 1213, it was held that where the amount due is within the exclusive knowledge of the creditor and the creditor on demand neglects or refuses to indicate the correct amount that is due, the debtor may tender so much as he thinks is justly due, and if less than the true amount, the tender is nevertheless good.