Interest is stopped, sureties are released, and liens are discharged. ( Leet v. Armbruster, 143 Cal. 663 [ 77 P. 653]; Loughborough v. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250 [5 Am. St. Rep. 435, 14 P. 369, 15 P. 773]; Wiemeyer v. Southern T. C. Bank, 107 Cal.App. 165 [ 290 P. 70].) Some uncertainty exists as to whether tender discharges a mortgage, but logically it should, for the mortgage is only a lien.
Mrs. Whitney failed to act at her peril. The tender was no more specific than the one held sufficient in Wiemeyer v. Southern Trust Commerce Bank, 107 Cal.App. 165 [ 290 P. 70]. [2] As defendants here made no objection to the form of the tender, any objection to it on that ground was waived by them. [3] Plaintiff was not required to disclose the capacity in which he was acting in making the tender.
First Nat. Bank of Davis v. Britton, 185 Okla. 566, 94 P.2d 896, 898 [1939].Smith, Wogan Co. v. Bice, 34 Okla. 294, 125 P. 456, 457 [1912]; Knudson v. Fenimore, 69 Okla. 3, 169 P. 478, 480 [1918]; cf. First Nat. Bank of Davis v. Britton, supra note 6. The rule's rationale is articulately expressed in MidState Homes, Inc. v. Jackson, Okla., 519 P.2d 472, 476 [1974]; Wiemeyer v. Southern Trust Commerce Bank, 107 Cal.App. 165, 290 P. 70, 74 [1930] and in Bardon Loan Co. v. Boggs, 159 Okla. 196, 14 P.2d 947, 948 [1932]. By the terms of 42 O.S. 1971 §§ 18[ 42-18] and 20 a person may redeem his property from a lien by offering to pay the obligation for which the lien stands as security together with allowable "damages for delay".
(Id. at pp. 700-702.) Wiemeyer v. Southern Trust & Commerce Bank (1930) 107 Cal.App. 165, 173 stands for the proposition that the executor of a deceased trustor's estate can extinguish a mortgage lien and prevent foreclosure by tendering the entire amount owing to the lender. (Ibid.)