Language is occasionally used which seems to imply that a formal tender is necessary.1 A formal tender, however, while frequently the most satisfactory method of putting the adversary party in default, is not absolutely necessary. It is sufficient if one of the parties to a contract in which the covenants are concurrent is ready and willing to perform and notifies the adversary party of such readiness and willingness and calls upon him to perform, without making a formal tender.2 While it is sometimes said that the consignee must tender the freight, in order to recover the goods,3 this ordinarily means that the consignee can not demand delivery of the goods without paying the freight, and does not require a formal tender on his part.

1 See Sec. 2056.

2 New York, N. H. & H. R. Ry. v. Porter, 220 Mass. 547, 108 N. E. 409; McEachran v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 115 Mich. 318, 73 N. W. 231; Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. v. Foster Lumber Co., 31 Okla. 661, 122 Pac. 139; Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. v. Ehret, 52 Okla. 368, 152 Pac. 1107; Gates v. Bekins, 44 Wash. 422, 87 Pac. 505.

3 England. Gough v. Farr, 2 Car. & P. 631.

Indiana. Shellenbarger v. Blake, 67 Ind. 75.

Iowa. Lemke v. Franzenburg, 159 Ia. 466, 141 N. W. 332.

Kentucky. Burks v. Shain, 5 Ky. (2 Bibb.) 341, 5 Am. Dec. 616; Burnham v. Cornwell, 55 Ky. (16 B. Mon.) 284.

New Hampshire. Crossett v. Brack-ett, - N. H. -, 105 Atl. 5.

New Jersey. Coil v. Wallace, 24 N. J. L. 291.

Rhode Island. Clark v. Corey, 24 R. I. 137, 52 Atl. 811.

1 Kelly Construction Co. v. Hacken-sack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417; Clermont Co. v. Robb, 5 Ohio 490.

2 Kelly Construction Co. v. Hacken-sack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417.

3 Clermont Co. v. Robb, 5 Ohio 490.

4 Page v. Ford, 65 Or. 450, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 247, 131 Pac. 1013.