The effect of a tender of specific articles logically should depend on the ability of the debtor to transfer title to the creditor by tendering the goods to which the creditor is entitled and storing them on his behalf; for unless the creditor is made owner the debt should still persist.
As the supposition is that the creditor rejects the tender, this means that the debtor must be able to compel performance of the creditor's obligation against the tetter's will. As has been seen,15 in many States the local law permits under a contract to sell such specific enforcement by the seller of the buyer's duty to take title, though in many jurisdictions this is not allowed. But where a unilateral obligation to transfer chattels exists it seems universally held at least in the United States that a tender if made and kept good operates as a complete satisfaction of the debtor's obligation, and in effect makes the creditor owner of the goods.16 The American decisions are based directly or indirectly on an early New York case,17 which found its chief support in a statement of the Civil law of consignation by Pothier.18
Gidden, 175 N. Y. App. Div. 603, 666, 162 N. Y. S. 317, McLaughlin, J., speaking for the Court said: "It may be conceded that tender of the amount 'due discharged the plaintiff's lien on the salmon, and defendant could have replevied the same; or, if damages had been sustained, interposed a counterclaim, or maintained an action for conversion. (Cass v. Higenbotam, 100 N. Y. 248, 3 N. E. 189; Reusens v. Arkenburgh, 135 N. Y. App. Div. 75, 119 N. Y. S. 821.) But the fact that the collateral was not surrendered when a tender of payment was made of the draft did not relieve the defendant from his obligation to pay. That obligation continued."
14 Caruthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270; Kortrigbt v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 343, 78 Am. Dec. 145; Thomas v. Seattle Brewing etc. Co., 48 Wash. 560, 94
Pac. 116, 15 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1164, 125 Am. St. Rep. 945. And see supra,