bowl vers bridge and MARKWICK what be a sufficient tender see Thornton v  Moulton ante Blackwell v Nash ante covenant on a deed date August whereby in  consideration of pay by the plaintiff to the defendant they covenant that they  or one of they on three day notice in write to be leave at the house of the  defendant bridge any time in a year will accept or cause to be accept l  SouthSea stock and all addition and dividend and pay for the same on transfer  thereof l with a proviso that if the plaintiff shall subscribe in the per cent  subscription propose to be take in and pay what be requisite to the expiration  of the contract the defendant shall pay the same over and above the l but if  the plaintiff do not tender the stock and dividend then the agreement be to be  void and the defendant be to retain the l then the plaintiff aver that the  company do not take in any stock subscription and although on August he give  notice in write at the house of bridge that on the that of August he will  transfer the stock and dividend ac although he be ready at the southseahouse  where the book be keep and offer to transfer accord to notice yet the  defendant or either of they do not accept the stock or pay the l but refuse  and still do refuse so to do they ind et pro causan that it do not appear what  dividend or profit be make and tender strange and reeve pro to ward off argue  that the declaration be in on that account for he ought to have show what they  be that the court may see he make a tender of all the usual hour of transfer  stock be not show so it do not appear he be there the last instant of time as  he ought to be accord to the case of Lancashire v Killingworth salk Bootle  contra the dividend and profit be know and certain and the defendant have the  same opportunity to know what they be as the plaintiff have cro as to the  second exception he agree that if it rest only on a tender the declaration  will be ill but here he say there be a actual refusal and that be enough be it  at any time of the day and a great difference there be between a tender and  refusal and a tender and nonacceptance Inst b   vide Jones v Berkeley Doug the  case cite in Blackwell v Nash ante but where one party be not prevent by the  other from make a complete tender he must show one vide austin v Jervoise hob  anon roll Rep Lancashire v Killingworth ld raym say per curian the refusal be  not lie as a act do by the defendant but only as a conclusion the plaintiff  draw from the premise it be not say to be adtunc et ibidem so that for any  thing appear it may be at another time and place and the plaintiff must precis  entitle himself to the action and as to the first objection the declaration be  certain informal and it be show for cause of demurrer the plaintiff  discontinue on payment of cost strange report er p