The effect of a tender in giving rise to a right under a bilateral contract has been elsewhere considered,8 and here there is only in question the effect of a tender upon an absolute obligation.9 Such an obligation may conceivably be performable only at one time, as a contract to work on a particular day, or the obligation though due on a particular day may be capable of performance on any day thereafter. A typical obligation of the latter sort is an obligation to pay money. A valid tender of performance of an obligation of the former sort necessarily discharges the obligation.10 But a tender of performance of an obligation to pay money or of any obligation which is capable of performance after the day when performance was due, has no such effect. A right of action on a pecuniary debt is not barred by a prior tender;11 but the debtor is free from liability for interest and costs from the date of the tender.12 Moreover, the right to any lien, pledge, or security held by the creditor is thereby lost by him.18 This is true at the present time though the tender is made after maturity of the debt or after the law day of a mortgage.14
Minn. 146, 42 N. W. 866, 4 L. R. A. 305, 16 Am. St. Rep. 679; Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 343, 78 Am. Dec. 146; Christenson v. Nelson, 38 Or. 473, 63 Pac. 648; Thomas v. Seattle Brewing, etc., Co., 48 Wash. 660, 94 Pac. 116, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1164, 125 Am. St. Rep. 945.
8 See supra, Sec.Sec. 743, 744, 832, 833.
9 As to the effect on the obligation of sureties, see supra, Sec. 1235.
10 See supra, Sec. 832; infra, Sec. 1970.
11 Saunders v. Denison, 20 Conn. 521, 525; Independent Credit Co. v. South Chicago City R. Co., 121 111. App. 595; Sheriff v. Hull, 37 Iowa, 174; Town v. Trow, 24 Pick. 168; Memphis Mach. Works v. Aberdeen, 77 Miss. 420, 27 So. 608; Howard v. Hunt, 57 N. H. 467; Kelly v. West, 36 N. Y. Super. 304; Charlotte Bank v. Davidson, 70 N. C. 118; Loth-Hoffman Clothing Co. v. Schwartz (Okl.), 176 Pac. 916; Hays v. Bashor (Wash.), 185 Pac. 814. By Oal. C. C, Sec. 1500, a due offer of payment immediately followed by deposit of the amount of the debt in a bank within the State in the creditor's name and notice to him, operates as payment. Colton v. Oakland Say. Bank, 137 Cal. 376, 70 Pac. 225.
12 Bacon, Abr. Tender (F), and see cases in the preceding note.
13 Ratcliff v. Davies, Cro. Jac. 244; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909 Ryall v. Rolle, 1 Atk. 165, 167; Mitchell v. Roberts, 17 Fed. 776; Latta v. Tutton, 122 Cal. 279, 54 Pac. 844; McCalla v. Clark, 55 Ga. 53; Hathaway v. Fall River Nat. Bank, 131 Mass. 14; Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N. W. 413; Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn. 146, 42 N. W. 865, 4 L. R. A. 305, 16 Am. St. Rep. 679; Moyer v. Leavitt, 82 Neb. 310, 117 N. W. 698; Frost v. Yonkers Sav. Bank, 70 N. Y. 553, 26 Am. Rep. 627; Davis v. Bigler, 62 Pa. St. 242, 1 Am. Rep. 393; Hyams v. Bamberger, 10 Utah, 3, 36 Pac. 202, 205.
In First Nat. Bank of Seattle v.