If tender is refused, the question whether the contract is discharged or not depends on whether the contract requires payment in money or other performance. If the contract provides for performance other than payment in money, a refusal of tender operates as a discharge.1 If the contract provides for payment in money, refusal of tender does not discharge the contract as far as the liability of the principal creditor is concerned,2 though it stops interest3 and costs,4 provided the tender is kept good. To discharge interest, however, the tender must be kept good.5 If the tender is not kept good, and the debtor makes use of the money tendered by him, after tender is refused, he is liable for interest.6 Since a tender of less than the full amount is insufficient in law it does not prevent recovery of costs in a subsequent action.7 A surety is discharged by refusal of tender made by him with the demand that the debt be assigned to him.8

5 National, etc., Co. v. Machine Co., 181 Mass. 275; 63 N. E. 900.

6 Deacon v. Investment Co., 95 la. 180; 63 N. W. 673; Clark v. Neumann, 56 Neb. 374; 76 N. W. 892; Felker v. Hazelton, 68 N. H. 303; 38 Atl. 1051; Bahmann v. Stone, 59 O. S. 497; 52 N. E. 1022; Shank v. Groff, 45 W. Va. 543; 32 S. E. 248.

7 Commercial Bank v. Crenshaw, 103 Ala. 497; 15 So. 741; West v. Ins. Co., 117 la. 147; 90 N. W. 523.

8 Terrell Coal Co. v. Laeey (Ala.), 31 So. 109. 9 Parker v. Beasley, 116 N. C. 1;

33 L. R. A. 231; 21 S. E. 955.

1 Mitchell v. Merrill. 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 87; 18 Am. Dec. 128; De Long v. Wilson, 80 la. 216; 45 N. W. 764; Wyman v. Winslow, 11 Me. 398; 26 Am. Dec. 542; Shannon v. Comstock, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 457;

34 Am. Dec. 262; Barney v. Bliss,

1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 399; 12 Am. Dec. 696.

2 Mohn v. Stoner, 11 la. 30; Suffolk Bank v. Bank, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 106; Snyder v. Quarton, 47 Mich. 211; 10 N. W. 204; Ruppel v. Building Association, 158 Mo. 613; 59 S. W. 1000; Stowell v. Read. 16 N. H. 20; 41 Am. Dec. 714; Preston v. Grant, 34 Vt. 201.

3 Cheney v. Libbey, 134 U. S. 68; Peugh v. Davis, 113 U. S. 542: Bailey v. Buchanan County. 115 N. Y. 297; 6 L. R. A. 562; 22 N. E 155; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 N. Y. 94; Parker v. Beasley. 116 N. C. 1: 33 L. R. A. 231; 21 S. E. 955.

4McCalley v. Otey. 99 Ala. 584; 42 Am. St. Rep. 87; 12 So. 406; Wing v. Blocker, 115 Ga. 778; 42 S. E. 67; Saunders v. King, 119 la. 291; 93 N. W. 272; Cohoon v. Kin eon, 46 O. S. 590; 22 N. E. 722.