Where a tender does not discharge the debtor's obligation he must keep the tender good in order that it shall be effectual to bar damages for delayed performance, that is, he must continue ready and willing and able to carry out the tender, and must not thereafter use the money or property tendered for his own profit;5 and a right to damages on account of non-payment of a debt or non-performance of a duty after being taken away by a tender may, by a subsequent demand and refusal, be restored from the time of such demand.6 If, however, a lien or mortgage has once been discharged by a valid tender it is not revived by failure to keep the tender good.7

4 Hansard v. Robinson, 7 B. & C. 90; Dozier v. Vizard Inv. Co. (Ala.), 83 So. 572; Storey v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397, 400, 23 Am. Rep. 668; Heywood v. Hartshorn, 55 N. H. 476; Strafford v. Welch, 59 N. H. 46; Bailey v. Buchanan County, 115 N. Y. 297, 22 N. E. 155, 6 L. R. A. 562; Halpin v. Phenix Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 165, 23 N. E. 482. Otherwise of a non-negotiable note. Storey v. Krewson, 55 Ind. 397, 23 Am. Rep. 668. There is no doubt that a valid demand of payment by the holder of a negotiable instrument, whenever demand is necessary cannot be made without production of the instrument and an offer to surrender it on receipt of payment. Ocean Nat. Bank v. Fant, 50 N. Y. 474, 476. See Uniform Neg. Inst. Law, Sec. 74, supra, Sec. 1166.

5 Gyles v. Hall, 2 Peere Wms. 378; Bissell v. Heyward, 96 U. S. 580, 24 L. Ed. 678; Odum v. Rutledge, etc., R. Co., 94 Ala. 488, 10 So. 222; Abbott v. Herron, 90 Ark. 206, 118 S. W. 708; Burlock v. Cross, 16 Col. 162, 26 Pac.

142; Matthews v. Lindsay, 20 Fla. 962; Fortson v. Strickland (Ga. App.), 99 S. E. 147; Rankin v. Rankin, 216 III. 132, 74 N. E. 763; Wilson v. McVey, 83 Ind. 108; Saum v. LaShell, 45 Kans. 205, 25 Pac. 561; McPheters v. Kimball, 99 Me. 505, 59 Atl. 853; Maulsby v. Page, 105 Md. 24, 65 Atl. 818; National Machine Ac. Co. v. Standard Ac. Co., 181 Mass. 275, 281, 63 N. E. 900; Nelson v. Loder, 132 N. Y. 288, 30 N. E. 369; Rogers v. Piland (N. C), 100 S. E. 181; Anderson v. Griffith, 51 Or. 116,93 Pac 934; Barron v. Thompson (S. Car.), 97 S. E. 840; Miller v. Poff (Tex. Civ. App.), 217 S. W. 399. See also Union Machinery Ac. Co. v. Thompson (Wash.), 182 Pac. 573. Cf. Hebbleth-waite v. Flint, 173 N. Y. S. 81.

6 Bacon, Abr. Tender (F); Kelly v. Keith, 85 Ark. 30, 106 S. W. 1173; Town v. Trow, 24 Pick. 168.

7 Mitchell v. Roberts, 17 Fed. 776; McPherson v. James, 69 111. App. 337; Weeks v. Roberts, 152 Mass. 20, 24 N. E. 905; Stewart v. Brown, 48 Mich. 383,12 N. W. 499; Norton v. Baxter, 41