controlling. Whether a contract is entire or severable depends primarily upon the intention of the parties,1 as determined by the ordinary rules of construction.2 The language used by the parties and the subject-matter of the contract must be regarded in ascertaining the intention of the parties on this question,3 as on other questions.4 The intention of the parties must be ascertained from the contract taken as a whole,5 and not from the separate parts thereof taken without regard to one another.6 The surrounding circumstances may be considered in ascertaining the intention of the parties.7 If the contract is ambiguous, the practical construction which is placed upon a contract by the parties is of great weight in determining whether it is entire or severable.8

13 Piper v. Boston & Maine Ry., 75 N. H. 435, 75 Atl. 1041.

14 Ramsay v. Crevlin, 254 Fed. 813.

(A new contract which eliminates the void or illegal covenants of the original contract may itself be valid. See Sec. 1041 et seq. It is not therefore necessary to invoke the theory that such contracts are severable.)

1 Arkansas. Carr v. Hahn, 133 Ark. 401, 202 S. W. 685.

California-. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. Amalgamated Oil Co., 156 Cal. 776, 106 Pac. 55.

Iowa. Quarton v. American Law Book Co., 143 Ia. 517, 32 L. R. A. (N S.) 1, 121 N. W. 1009; Comptograph Co. v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 179 Ia. 83, 159 N. W. 465.

Georgia. Willett Seed Co. v. Kirk-eby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559, 89 S. E. 486

Kansas. Crawford v. Surety Investment Co., 91 Kan. 748, 139 Pac. 481.

Louisiana. Stockstill v. Byrd, 132 La. 404, 61 So. 446.

Massachusetts. Barlow Mfg. Co. v. Stone, 200 Mass. 158, 86 N. E. 306.

Mississippi. Ganong v. Brown, 88

Miss. 53, 117 Am. St. Rep. 731, 40 So. 556.

Oregon. Hodson-Feenaughty Co. v. Coast Culvert & Flume Co., 91 Or. 630, 178 Pac. 382.

Pennsylvania. Producers' Coke Co. v. Hillman, 243 Pa. St. 313, 90 Atl. 144.

Vermont. Thompson-Starett Co. v. E. B. Ellis Granite Co., 86 Vt. 282, 84 Atl. 1017.

Washington. Godefroy v. Hupp, 93 Wash. 371, 160 Pac. 1056; Loveland v. Reese Co., - Wash. - , 177 Pac. 719.

West Virginia. Parkersburg & Marietta Sand Co. v. Smith, 76 W. Va. 246, 85 S. E. 516.

2 See Ch. LXIII.

3 Crawford v. Surety Investment Co., 91 Kan. 748, 139 Pac. 481; Hodson-Feenaughty Co. v. Coast Culvert & Flume Co., 91 Or. 630, 178 Pac. 382.

4 See Ch. LXIII.

5Baily v. DeCrespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180; International Contracting Co. v. United States, 47 Ct. Cl. 158; Gil-more & Co. v. Samuels & Co., 135 Ky. 706, 21 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 611, 123 S. W. 271; Ganong v. Brown, 88 Miss. 53. 114 Am. St. Rep. 731, 40 So. 556.

See Sec. 2038.