Clandime Alexandria Guerin De Tencin, a French woman of society, born in Grenoble in 1681, died in Paris, Dec. 4, 1749. She became a nun, and like her two sisters led a gay life at her convent, and after her transfer as canoness to a less strict monastery near Lyons she was accused of being enceinte. In 1714 she was absolved from her religious vows, and went to Paris to live in the home of her brother, the future cardinal and statesman, for whom she displayed a passionate devotion, which subjected her to odious insinuations. She worked steadily for his advancement, acquired a fortune through the financier Law,. and was for short periods mistress of Cardinal Dubois, and of the regent duke of Orleans. By the poet Destouches she became (Nov. 16,1717) mother of D'Alembert. (See Alembert.) In 1726 she was arrested on a charge preferred against her in the will of La Fresnay, one of her many lovers, who had killed himself in her house, of having sought to destroy him; but the charge fell to the ground. After her speedy release she showed greater discretion, and confined herself more exclusively to her associations with Fontenelle, Montesquieu, and other scholars who attended her receptions, which were among the first of the kind in France. She published Lcs memoires du comte de Comminges (1735); Le siege de Calais, a historical novel (2 vols., 1739-'-10); and Les malheurs de Vamour (1747). Her correspondence with her brother, the cardinal, was published in 1700, and Lettres au due de Richelieu in 1806. Her works have frequently been published together with those of Mme. de Lafayette. One of the best editions is by Jay and Etienne (5 vols., Paris, 1825). - See Memoires secrets de Mine, de Ten-cm, by the abbe Barthelemy (Grenoble, 1790). TENDER, in law, an offer to perform an act, for the performance whereof one person is bound to another.

The obligation, and so the offer, may be to pay money or to deliver specific articles. If the tender be of money, it is effectual only when the demand is one of money, and is definite in amount, or is capable of being made so. Thus, a tender cannot be pleaded as a defence to an action upon a contract, unless the contract be one for the payment of money, as for rent; nor to an action for a tort, as for assault and battery. In short, wherever the claim is for unliquidated damages, the general rule is that no tender is admissible. In some of the United States, however, cases of involuntary trespass form an exception, founded partly on usage and partly on express statutory provisions. A tender may bo by the defendant in person, or by a third person at his request; and it should be made to the creditor personally, or to some one authorized by him to receive the money. At common law, a tender must be made on the very day the money is due, if that day be made certain by the contract. But the statutes and usages of the states generally permit the tender to be made after that day, if before the action is brought; and in some it may be made after the action is brought.

Tender is generally not good if made before the debt is due, but may in some cases be so if it includes interest up to the day of maturity. - A tender of money is not complete without production and offer of the money, unless the creditor expressly or impliedly waives the production. Thus it is said not to be enough in a plea of tender, if the plaintiff did not object to receive the money, for the defendant to prove that he had the money in his pocket, and said to the creditor that he had it ready for him, and asked him to take it. He ought to have produced and offered the money specifically. What amounts to a waiver on the part of the creditor is a nice if not difficult question. It seems from the cases that the creditor may not only waive the actual production of the money, but the actual possession of it in hand by the debtor. The debtor is not bound to count out the money if he has it and offers it. - The tender must be made without any condition that the creditor may with good reason object to. A demand of a receipt in full of all demands has often been held to invalidate a tender; not so much because a receipt was asked for, as because part was offered in full payment.

And it seems that a debtor would lose the benefit of a tender if he should accompany it with a demand of a receipt for the sum that he pays, and because it was refused should retain the money. Tender of a larger sum than is due, with a request of the change or the balance, is not good; but a refusal of the money offered, for reasons distinct from the manner in which the offer is made, as for the insufficiency of the sum or the like, is a waiver of all objection to the form of the tender. The tender should be made in money made lawful by statute. A tender of good and current bank notes is good if no objection is made on the ground that they are not money. The effect of a tender will be destroyed if the creditor can show a subsequent demand by him of the proper fulfilment of the contract at the proper time, and a refusal by the debtor. - Tender does not bar a debt as payment would, but rathei4 establishes the liability of the defendant; for, in general, he is liable to pay the sum which he tenders whenever ho is required to do so.

But the tender stops the recovery of damages or interest for delay in payment, and gives the defendant subsequent costs, provided the plaintiff recovers nothing beyond the sum tendered. - As in sales the property in chattels does not pass while any necessary act remains to be done, so if there be an obligation to deliver those articles, it may be said as a general rule that the obligation is not discharged by tender so long as anything is left undone which would prevent the property from passing under a sale. Chattels tendered, therefore, should be separated and distinguished from any others, and not be so mingled with others that are not to be delivered that they cannot be separately identified. The tender of goods may be made to an agent or by an agent, and must be equally unconditional as if of money; and if the agent of the deliverer has orders to deliver the chattels to the receiver only if he will cancel and deliver up the contract, this is not a tender, although the agent had the chattels at the proper time and place. Generally, if no time or place be specified, chattels are to be delivered where they were at the time of the contract, unless collateral circumstances designate a different place.

If the time be fixed, but not the place, it will be presumed that the deliverer was to bring the articles to the receiver at that time; and for that purpose he must go with the chattels to the residence or place of business of the receiver, unless the lord and the vassal, in very different proportions. There were generally many lords, for the system of subinfeudation prevailed, and the vassal held of his immediate lord, he of the next higher, and he of the next, the series always going up to and ending with the sovereign. Hence we may say that all tenure rested upon two principles : one, that all land was held of the sovereign, who retained certain rights and interests therein; the other, that all the rights and interests of all the lords, and of the tenant finally in possession, added together, constituted that allodial tenure already mentioned. There were various kinds of tenure, as for example tenure by copyhold, tenure in gavelkind, and the tenure of borough English. Of copyhold there is nothing in the United States. The principal feature of tenure in gavelkind was that all the sons inherited equally and together, instead of the eldest son alone, which latter is the rule of the feudal system, and is nearly universal in England. (See Gavelkind, and Heir.) Of tenure by borough English, the essential principle is, that neither the eldest nor all the sons inherit, but the youngest takes as heir.

For this strange custom Littleton accounts by the lesser ability of the youngest son to take care of himself; but a custom prevalent in many parts of the United States offers a more probable explanation of this tenure. It is common in New England, for example, for the eldest son, as he comes to maturity, to receive what assistance his father can give, which is considered as his share of the estate; the same thing is done with other sons as they reach full age; until at length only the youngest son is left to take charge of his parents. When they die he has the homestead; or while they live they relinquish it to him, taking his obligation or trusting to his affection for support. The same custom is said to exist in Tyrol, Bavaria, and other parts of Germany. - The tenure with which we have most concern is that of socage. This was wholly liberated from the stringent military services which generally prevailed, and the civil services on which land was held under it were for the most part easy and honorable.

At an early period it became known as "free and common socage," and as this tenure spread over England, the severities, restrictions, and encumbrances of the common feudal tenures passed away, until this process was completed by the statute 12 Charles II. (1661), and nearly all the old feudal tenures (all in fact which were in any way burdensome or restrictive of the proper rights of the tenant) were reduced to the tenure of free and common socage. This tenure has all the actual advantages of allodial ownership. The beneficial use which one who holds by this tenure has in the land comprises, for all practical purposes*, a sole, undivided, and unencumbered interest. Escheat remains as a feudal incident to the tenure, but the lord cannot profit by it if the tenant has an heir or chooses to make a will. The tenant in fee simple of lands held in free and common socage can make any disposition of them, and carve any estates out of them, which the law of real estate permits; and any one to whom he grants it by sale or gift, or devises it by will, takes title directly from the grantor or testator, and his title is complete without the consent or concurrence of the lord or any action whatever on his part.

It may be added that this tenure, unlike most other feudal tenures, has no reference whatever to the rank or occupation of the tenant, or to the purposes to which the lands are applied. This was the tenure created or prescribed by all the early colonial charters or patents from which our titles are now derived; as the charter of Virginia in 1606; the patent of New England in 1620; the charter of Massachusetts in 1629; of Maryland in 1632; of the province of Maine in 1639; of Connecticut in 1662; of Carolina in 1663; of Rhode Island in 1663; of Pennsylvania in 1681; the act of the general assembly of the colony of New York in 1691; and the charter of Georgia in 1732. But in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Michigan all feudal tenures, including of course that of free and common socage, are abolished by statute; and it seems to be held, that under the provisions of the ordinance of 1787 the doctrine of tenures is not in force in any of the states formed out of the territory to which that ordinance applied. Substantially, our tenure unites what is best in both the allodial tenure and that by free and common socage.

Nor is the fact without its historical value, that the allodial tenure, which formerly prevailed over all Europe, among all the nations who were the ancestors of European nations and so of our own, after being displaced for more than 1,000 years by the feudal system, is at length reestablished in full force throughout the United States. And yet there are reasons for thinking the tenure of free and common socage, freed as it certainly is now from all feudal encumbrance, explains and illustrates our law of real estate better than the other theory. One reason is, that the principles of the feudal system do in fact underlie all the doctrines and all the forms of the common law in regard to real estate; and wherever the common law prevails, which it does in all the states excepting Louisiana (where the municipal law is founded upon the Roman civil law), the principles of the feudal law and of feudal tenure must be understood and made use of. Another reason is, that the law of escheat is universal with us (see Escheat), and it is governed by the law of feudal tenure, modified by our statutes.

A third reason is, that the important and universal law of eminent domain is far better understood and applied by the theory that all property is held from the sovereign, that is, the state or people; and that in the original grant on which all title is founded, the sovereign reserved the right to resume the same for his own, that is, for the public use, on making adequate compensation. Yet another reason is, that the obligation of fealty remains in full force. It is now and here an obligation only to the sovereign. It is implied, or rather it is expressed, in the oath of allegiance; but it does not depend on this oath. It is the obligation and the duty which rest on every citizen of the United States, as the condition upon which he holds all property, all interests, and all rights, to be "feall and loiall," as the old law expressed it, to be faithful and loyal to his sovereign, that is, to the state and to the Union.