If, however, the debtor attempts to impose any conditions not required by law,1 such as demanding that the tender be accepted as full performance,2 or that a discharge3 or a release in full4 be given, or that a right of appeal be waived,5 or that in connection with the debt in question other claims between the same parties be settled,6 the tender is insufficient. Under a contract for a bond of indemnity a tender made on condition of furnishing a lease for the realty in question, instead of such bond, is insufficient.7 So it has been held that tender of the mortgage ipso facto amount due on a note given for a conveyance of realty is insufficient where coupled with a demand for such conveyance.8 A tender of the amount due on a land contract has been held sufficient, though accompanied by a request for a conveyance.9 Even under a statute allowing the debtor to demand a receipt, he can demand a receipt only for the money paid in, and not a receipt in full.10 So a demand for the surrender of collateral to secure payment of the debt in question as well as other debts prevents a tender from being effective.11 So a tender by A of personalty claimed by B, reserving to A the right to recover its value if it should be held to belong to A, is insufficient.12 So tender of deeds and abstracts under a contract for the sale of realty is insufficient if coupled with a demand for a cash payment not required by the contract.13 The rejection of a valid conveyance tendered by the grantor and a demand for a conveyance of different form prevents a tender of the purchase price from being sufficient.14 Tender of the amount due with request for an assignment of the debt instead of payment is not sufficient.15 The debtor has a right, however, to use language showing that he does not admit that more is due. As long as he does not require the creditor to assent thereto as a condition of payment, the use of such language does not vitiate a tender. Thus tender by debtor of a sum "as a payment of the balance due on that mortgage," is sufficient if the amount is correct.16

5 Mankel v. Belscamper, 84 Wis. 218; 54 N. W. 500.

6 Kennedy v. Moore, 91 la. 39; 58 X. W. 1066.

1 Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 392; 43 L. R. A. 519; 46 S. W. 938; Jones v. Shuey (Cal.), 40 Pac. 17; Butler v. Hinckley, 17 Colo. 523; Sanford v. Bulkley, 30 Conn. 344; Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513; Rose v. Duncan, 49 Ind. 269; Latham v. Hartford, 27 Kan. 249; Chapin v. Chapin, 161 Mass. 138; 36 N. E. 746; Loring v. Cooke, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 48; McEldon v. Pat-ton (Neb.), 93 N. W. 938; Schrandt v. Young, 62 Neb. 254; 86 N. W. 1085; Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592; 78 N. W. 288; Brace v. Doble, 3 S. D. 110; 52 N. W. 586; Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wia. 339.

2 Moore v. Norman, 52 Minn. 83; 38 Am. St. Rep. 526; 18 L. R. A. 359; 53 N. W. 809; Ruppel v. Building Association, 158 Mo. 613; 59 S. W. 1000; Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147; 38 Am. Rep. 361; 7 N. W. 747; Noyes v. Wyekoff. 114 N. Y. 204; 21 N. E. 158; Rand v. Harris, 83 N. C. 486; Pershing v. Feinberg, 203 Pa. St. 144; 52 Atl. 22; Doty v. Crawford, 39 S. C. 1; 17 S. E. 377.

3 Richardson v. Chemical Laboratory, 9 Met. (Mass.), 42.

4 Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107; 22 Am. Dec. 223; Loring v. Cooke, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 48.

5 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 86 Fed. 16; 29 C. C. A. 538.

6 Greenhill v. Hunton (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 440.

7 National Bank v. Levanseler, 115 Mich. 372; 73 N. W. 399.

8 Even under a statute allowing the debtor to demand a receipt. Morris v. Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 53; 42 S. E. 474; Elder v. Johnson, 115 Ga. 691; 42 S. E. 51; De Graffen-ried v. Menard, 103 Ga. 651; 30 S. E. 560.

9 Harding v. Giddings, 73 Fed. 335; 19 C. C. A. 508.

10 West v. Ins. Co., 117 la. 147; 90 N. W. 523.

11 Sehmittdiel v. Moore, 101 Mich. 590; 60 N. W. 279; Fidelity, etc.,

Co. v. Ehgleby, 99 Va. 168; 37 S. E. 957.

12 Perkins v. Brewery, 134 Cal. 372; 66 Pac. 482.

13Breja v. Pryne, 94 la. 755; 64 N. W. 669.

14 Hyde v. Heller, 10 Wash. 586; 39 Pac. 249.

15 Cochran v. Jackman (Ky.), 56 S. W. 507; Whittaker v. Roller Mill Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 674; 38 Atl. 289.

16 Davies v. Dow, 80 Minn. 223; 83 N. W. 50.