Since performance cannot be tendered before maturity tender before the day for payment does not discharge the lien of the mortgage.1 Tender of the amount of a debt secured by mortgage discharges the mortgage if made before condition broken on the day fixed by the contract for payment.2 It has been held, however, that such tender will not avoid the lien of the mortgage unless the tender is kept good by paying the money into court,3 and the discharge of the mortgage is said to date only from the date of payment into court.4 If condition is broken and tender of the debt is made after that time, with interest down to the time of making tender, some courts hold that such tender discharges the mortgage.5 Such a tender has been held to discharge a lien in the nature of a mortgage created by a lease of water power.6 Other courts hold that such tender does not discharge the mortgage.7 So a tender by attaching creditors of a mortgagor discharges the lien of a mortgage.8 A tender, kept good, has been held to divest the lien of a chattel mortgage.9 To discharge the lien of a mortgage the tender must be so far free from conditions that it would be sufficient to stop interest and costs. If conditions are imposed by the party who makes the tender in excess of those imposed by law, the tender is ineffective.10

5 McCalley v. Otis, 99 Ala. 584; 42 Am. St. Rep. 87; 12 So. 406.

6 Sanders v. Bryer, 152 Mass. 141; 9L. E. A. 255; 25 N. E. 86.

7 Elder v. Elder, 43 Kan. 514; 23 Pac. 600; Elsanger v. Grovijohn, 29 Neb. 139; 45 N. W. 273.

8 O'Connor v. Morse, 112 Cal. 31; 53 Am. St. Rep. 155; 44 Pac. 305.

1 Supply Diteh Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. 327; 3 Am. St. Rep. 586; 15 Pae. 691; Fox v. Williams, 92 Wis. 320; 66 N. W. 357.

2 Munk v. Kanzler, 26 Tnd. App. 105; 58 N. E. 543.

3 Supply Diteh Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. 327; 3 Am. St. Rep. 586; 15 Pac. 691.

4 Uedelhofen v. Mason, 201 111. 465; 66 N. E. 364; affirming, 102 111. App. 116.

5 Duekwall v. Jones, 156 Tnd. 682; 58 N. E. 1055; affirmed on rehear-ing, 156 Ind. 682; 60 N. E. 797.

6 Young v. Borzone, 26 Wash. 4, 23; 66 Pac. 135. 421.

7 The Mona (1894). P. 265.

1 Moore v. Kime, 43 Neb. 517; 61 N. W. 736.

2 Jones v. Guaranty, etc., Co., 101 U. S. 622; Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; 3 Am. Pep. 256.

3 Parker v. Beasley, 116 N. C. 1; 33 L. R. A. 231; 21 S. E. 955.

4 American, etc., Co. v. Githens, 57 N. J. Eq. 539; 41 Atl. 405.

5 Renard v. Clink. 91 Mich. 1; 30 Am. St. Rep. 458; 51 N. W. 692; Werner v. Tuch, 127 N. Y. 217: 24 Am. St. Rep. 443; 27 N. E. 845.

6 Gordon v. Hydraulic Co., 117 Mich. 620; 76 N. W. 142.

7 Perre v. Castro, 14 Cal. 519; 76 Am. Dec. 444; Rowell v. Mitchell, 68 Me, 21; Holman v. Bailey, 3 Met. (Mass.) 55; Hudson Bros.

Commission Co. v. Gravel Co., 140 Mo. 103; 62 Am. St. Rep. 722; 41 S. W. 450. (In this case the earlier and to some extent inconsistent Missouri cases are discussed. In Mc-Clung v. Trust Co., 137 Mo. 106; 38 S. W. 578, there had been no tender in fact, but the court expressed the opinion that such a tender might stop interest but could not discharge the mortgage.) Shields v. Lozear, 34 N. J. L. 496; 3 Am. Rep. 256.

8 Felker v. Hazelton, 68 N. H. 303; 38 Atl. 1051.

9 Gould v. Armagost, 46 Neb. 897; 65 N. W. 1064.

10 Moore v. Norman, 52 Minn. 83; 38 Am. St. Rep. 526; 18 L. R. A. 359; 53 N. W. 809.