If two distinct and separate contracts have been made, the fact that each contains an identical condition does not render them entire; and a breach of such condition as to one contract will not affect the other.1

If the parties have made but one contract which contains two or more covenants, the courts usually agree upon the general principle that the question turns on the entire or severable character of the contract, but they disagree sharply as to the nature of the specific contract in the particular case. In some jurisdictions it has been said that the test, like that in cases of illegal covenants,2 is whether the consideration is apportioned between the different covenants or not, and that if such consideration is not apportioned, the contract is to be regarded as entire for the purpose of determining the effect of a breach of the condition.3 In other jurisdictions, however, the correctness of this view has been denied, and it has been said that even though the consideration is not apportioned between the different covenants, the contract may, nevertheless, be regarded as severable for the purpose of determining the effect of the breach of a condition.4

In some jurisdictions it is said that if different classes of property are insured, each for a specific amount, the contract is severable so that a breach of condition as to one class of property does not affect the insurance on the other classes of property.1 In other jurisdictions it is said that if the risk is entire the contract of insurance is entire, even if there is a separate valuation of each kind of property.6 This principle has been carried so far that failure to keep books and inventories in an iron safe has been held to avoid not only the insurance upon the stock of goods which was directly affected by such failure, but also insurance upon the fixtures,7 and upon the building.8

1 Williams v. Virginia State Ins. Co., 106 Va. 259, 55 S. E. 680.

2 See Sec. 1030 et seq.

3 Southern F. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 111 Ga. 622, 78 Am. St. Rep. 216, 62 L. R. A. 70, 36 S. E. 821; Burr v. German Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 76, 36 Am. St. Rep. 905, 64 N. W. 22; Carey v. German Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 80, 36 Am. St. Rep. 907, 20 L. R. A. 267, 04 N. W. 18.

4 Taylor v. Anchor Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 116 la. 625, 93 Am. St. Rep. 261, 57 L. R. A. 328, 88 N. W. 807; Johan-sen v. Home F. Ins. Co., 54 Neb. 548, 74 N. W. 866 [citing, State Ins. Co. v. Schreck, 27 Neb. 527, 20 Am. St. Rep. 696, 6 L. R. A. 524, 43 N. W. 340, and Phenix Ins. Co. v. Grimes, 33 Neb. 340, 50 N. W. 1681.

5 Alabama. Manchester F. Ins. Co. v. Feibelman, 118 Ala. 308, 23 So. 759.

Illinois. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Spankneble, 52 III. 53, 4 Am. Rep. 582; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 54 III. 164, 5 Am. Rep. 115.

Indiana. Rogers v. Phenix Ins. Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N. E. 498.

Kansas. German Ins. Co. v. York, 48 Kan. 488, 30 Am. St. Rep. 313, 29 Pac. 586; Continental Ins. Co. v. Ward, 50 Kan. 346, 31 Pac. 1079; Kansas Farmers' F. Ins. Co. v. Saindon, 53 Kan. 623, 36 Pac. 983.

Mississippi Mitchell v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 53, 48 Am. St. Rep. 535, 18 So. 86.

Missouri. Loehner v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Mo. 247; Trabue v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 121 Mo. 75, 42 Am. St. Rep. 523, 23 L. R. A. 719, 25 S. W. 848.

In other jurisdictions it is said that a breach of condition which directly affects one covenant will avoid the entire contract only if such breach will in its nature affect the liability under such other covenant.9 Under this principle a breach of condition as to the ownership of the building does not render invalid insurance upon goods, as long as the risk as to the goods is not affected by such breach of condition.10 For the same reason a breach of a condition requiring that inventories and books be kept in an iron safe does not affect the insurance on the building.11

Montana. Wright v. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Mont. 474, 19 L. R. A. 211, 31 Pac. 87.

Nebraska. State Ins. Co. v. Schreck, 27 Neb. 527, 20 Am. St. Rep. 696, 6 L. R. A. 524, 43 N. W. 340; German Ins. Co. v. Fairbank, 32 Neb. 750, 29 Am. St. Rep. 459, 49 N. W. 711; Johansen v. Home F. Ins. Co., 54 Neb. 548, 74 N. W. 866; Home F. Ins. Co. v. Bernstein, 55 Neb. 260, 75 N. W. 839.

Hew York. Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 452, 29 Am. Rep. 184; Pratt v. Dwelling House Mut. F. Ins. Co., 130 N. Y. 206, 29 N. E. 117.

Ohio. Coleman v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 49 O. S. 310, 34 Am. St. Rep. 565, 16 L. R. A. 174, 31 N. E. 279.

Oklahoma. Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co., 14 Okla. 81, 65 L. R. A. 173, 2 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 17, 75 Pac. 1121; Arkansas Ins. Co. v. Cox, 21 Okla. 873, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 775, 98 Pac. 552.

Washington. Herzog v. Palatine Ins. Co., 36 Wash. 611, 79 Pac. 287.

Wisconsin. Loomis v. Rockford Ins. Co., 77 Wis. 87, 20 Am. St. Rep. 96, 8 L. R. A. 834, 45 N. W. 813.

6 Alabama. Western Assur. Co. v. Stoddard, 88 Ala. 606, 7 So. 379.

California. Goorberg v. Western Assur. Co., 150 Cal. 510, 10 L. It A. (N.S.) 876, 89 Pac 130.

Indiana. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Pickel, 119 Ind. 155, 12 Am. St. Rep. 393, 21 N. E. 547.

Maine. Carleton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 109 Me. 79, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 951, 82 Atl. 649.

Minnesota. Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98 [sub nomine, In re Millers' & Man. Ins. Co., 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 231, 106 N. W. 485].

Maryland. Joffe v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 116 Md. 155, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1047, 81 Atl. 281.

North Carolina. Coggins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 144 N. Car. 7, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839, 56 S. E. 506.

Ohio. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v• Schild, 69 O. S. 136, 68 N. E. 706.

Wisconsin. Schumitsch v. American Ins. Co., 48 Wis. 26, 3 N. W. 595.

7 Joffe v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 116 Md. 155, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1047, 81 Atl 281.

8 Southern F. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 111 Ga. 622, 78 Am. St. Rep. 216, 52 L. R. A. 70, 36 S. E. 821; Coggins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 144 N. Car. 7, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839, 56 S. E. 506.

9 Alabama. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford, 121 Ala. 258, 77 Am. St. Rep. 55, 25 So. 912.

Indiana. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Pickel, 119 Ind. 155, 12 Am. St. Rep. 393, 21 N. E. 546.

Kansas. Continental Ins. Co. v. Ward, 50 Kan. 346, 31 Pac. 1079.

In some jurisdictions the use of language in the contract to the effect that in case of breach of a condition relating to one covenant, the entire contract shall be void, is regarded as conclusive, and upon breach of such condition, although it relates to but one covenant, all the covenants are rendered inoperative.12 In other jurisdictions, however, language of this sort is regarded as rendering the policy void only as far as it is affected by such breach of condition;13 and accordingly such a contract is regarded as a severable contract if there is a separate valuation of the property in spite of the use of language which apparently makes the entire contract invalid.14 Even in such jurisdictions, however, a provision to the effect that the "entire policy and every part of it shall be void," is given full force and effect, and a breach of a condition with reference to one covenant will render the entire contract invalid.15

The greater number of cases under which questions of this sort have arisen, are cases involving insurance, and the effect of treating the condition in question as defeating the entire contract would ordinarily be to operate as a forfeiture. Since the courts are opposed to forfeitures, and since provision for forfeitures are construed as strictly as possible,16 they have frequently been driven to class contracts as severable in order to prevent the effect of a forfeiture which they would undoubtedly have classed as entire for every other purpose.

Missouri Trabue v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 121 Mo. 75, 42 Am. St. Rep. 523, 23 L. R. A. 710, 25 S. W. 848.

Montana. Wright v. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Mont. 474, 19 L. R. A. 211, 31 Pac. 87.

Nebraska. Home F. Ins. Co. v. Bernstein, 55 Neb. 260, 75 N. W. 839.

Ohio. Coleman v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 49 O. S. 310, 34 Am. St. Rep. 565, 16 L. R. A. 174, 31 N. E. 279.

10 Coleman v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 49 O. S. 310, 34 Am. St. Rep. 565, 16 L. R. A. 174, 31 N. E. 279.

11 Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Crawford, 121 Ala. 258, 77 Am. St. Rep. 55, 25 So. 912; Mitchell v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 53, 48 Am. St. Rep. 535, 18 So. 86; Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co., 14 Okla. 81, 65 L. R. A. 173, 75 Pac. 1121; Miller v. Scottish Union

& I. F. Ins. Co., 14 Okla. 91, 75 Pac. 113'); Fisher v. Sun Insurance Co., 74 W. Va. 694, L. R. A. 1915C, 619, 83 S. E. 729.

12 Dumas v. Northwestern National Ins. Co., 12 D. C. App. 245, 40 L. R. A. 358; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Schild, 69 O. S. 136, 100 Am. St. Rep. 663, 68 N. E. 706.

13 Donley v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 184 N. Y. 107, 76 N. E. 914.

14 Trabue v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 121 Mo. 75, 42 Am. St. Rep. 523, 23 L. R. A. 719, 25 S. W. 848; Donley v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 184 N. Y. 107, 76 N. E. 914; Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co., 14 Okla. 81, 65 L. R. A. 173, 75 Pac. 1121.

15 Smith v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 518, 23 N. E. 883.