The question of the entire or severable character of a contract arises for several different reasons,1 and, to some extent, the view which the court takes as to the character of the contract depends in part upon the purpose for which the question is raised.2 If one covenant of a contract is illegal, as has been said in another connection,3 the validity of the remaining covenants depends upon the character of the contract as a whole; being valid if the contract is severable 4 and unenforceable if the contract is entire.5

5 Manistee Navigation Co. v. Louis Sands Salt & Lumber Co., 174 Mich. 1, 140 N. W. 5C3; Cant well v. Crawley, 188 Mo. 44, 80 S. W. 251.

1 See Sec. 2083 et seq.

2 See Sec. 2083 et seq.

3 See Sec. 1020 et seq.

4 England. Pickering v. Infracombe Ry., LR.3C. P. 235.

United States. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. Marshalltown, 153 Fed. 620; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Bond, 1G0 Fed. 403, 87 C. C. A. 355 [affirming, Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Bond, 6 Ind. Terr. 515, 98 S. W. 335]; Kansas City Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. National Surety Co., 167 Fed. 406 [reversing, 157 Fed. 6201.

Alabama. Sims v. Brewing Co., 132 Ala. 311, 31 So. 35; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Pratt, 187 Ala. 511, L. R. A. 1915A, 1208, 65 So. 633.

California. Treadwell v. Davis, 34 CaL 601, 04 Am. Dec. 770; City Carpet Beating, etc., Works v. Jones, 102 Cal. 506, 36 Pac. 841.

Georgia. Long v. Gresham (Ga.), 96 S. E. 211.

Illinois. Corcoran v. Lehigh and Franklin Coal Co., 138 111. 300, 28 N. E. 759 [reversing, 37 I11 App. 577].

Indiana. Pierce v. Pierce, 17 Ind. App 107, 46 N. E. 480.

Iowa. Stewart v. Pierce, 116 la 733, 89 N. W. 234; Livingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry., 142 la. 404, 120 N. W. HMO; Fryer v. Harker, 142 la. 708, 121 N. W. 526.

Kentucky. Smith v. Corbin, 135 Ky 727, 123 8. W. 277; Stratton v. Wilson, 170 Ky. 61, 185 S. W. 522.

Massachusetts. Rand v. Mather, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 1, 59 Am Dec. 131

Missouri. Koontz v. Hannibal Savings and Insurance Co., 42 Mo 126, 97 Am. Dec. 325.

Nebraska. Faist v. Dahl, 86 Nob 669, 126 N. W. 84; Shevaher v. Doyle, 88 Neb 560, 130 N. W. 417.

New Jersey. Erie Ry. Co. v. Union Locomotive & Express Co, 35 N. J. L. 240.

Ohio. McCausland Bros. v. Akers, 24 Ohio C. C.711.

Oklahoma. Huber v. Culp, 46 Okla. 570, 149 Pac, 216.

Washington. Minnesota Sandstone Co. v. Clark, 35 Wash. 466, 77 Pac. 803.

West Virginia. Davidson v. Smith, 60 W. Va. 413, 55 S. E. 466.

Wyoming. Conradt v. Lepper, 13 Wyom. 473, 81 Pac. 307.

5 England. Feathereon v. Hutchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199.

The entire or severable character of the contract may determine the question of the application and effect of the Statute of United States. United States v. Bradley,. 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 343, 9 L. ed. 448; Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 57 U. S. (16 How.) 314, 14 L. ed. 953;Providence Tool Co. v. Norris, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 45, 17 L. ed. 868; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U S. 108, 25 L. ed. 899; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 43 L. ed. 382; Hazelton v. Shcckells, 202 U. S. 71, 50 L. ed. 930; Lingle v Snyder, 160 Fed. 627, 87 C. C. A. 520; Cleveland, C, C. A St. Louis Ry. v. Hirsch, 204 Fed. 849, 123 C. C. A. 145; Cooper v. Northern Pacific Ry., 212 Fed. 533.

Alabama. Arnold v. jones Cotton Co., 152 Ala. 501, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 150, 44 So. 662.

Arkansas. Edwards v. Randlc, 63 Ark. 318, 58 Am. St. Rep 108. 36 L. R. A. 174, 38 S. W. 343; Ensign v. Coffelt, 102 Ark. 568, 145 S. W. 231: Bryant Lumber Co. v. Fourche River Lumber Co., 124 Ark. 313, 187 S. W. 455.

California. Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387, 9 Am. St. Rep. 211, 18 Pac. 391; Humboldt County v. Stem, 136 Cal. 63, 68 Pac. 324; Getz Bros. v. Federal Salt Co., 147 Cal. 115, 109 Am. St. Rep. 114, 81 Pac. 416.

District of Columbia. Owens v. Wilkinson, 20 D. C. A pp. 51.

Illinois. Douthart v. Congdon, 197 III. 349, 90 Am. St. Rep. 167, 64 N. E. 348.

Indiana. Mount v. Board of Commissioners, 168 Ind. 661, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 483, 80 N. E. 629; Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. Hartman, 19 Ind. App. 506, 49 N. E. 864.

Iowa. Gipps Brewing Co. v. De France, 91 la. 108, 51 Am. St. Rep. 329, 28 L. R. A. 386, 58 N. W. 1087; Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 128 la. 533, 111 Am. St. Rep. 206, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 260, 104 N. W. 904.

Kansas. Fleming v. Greene, 48 Kan. 646, 30 Pac. 11; Sedgwick County v. State, 66 Kan. 634, 72 Pac. 284; Kansas City Elevated Railway Co. v. Rashel Service, 77 Kan. 316, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1105, 94 Pac. 262; Ridgway v. Wetterhold, 96 Kan. 736, 153 Pac. 490.

Kentucky, demons v. Meadows, 123 Ky. 178, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 847, 94 S. W. 13; Harston v.Ralston, 174 Ky. 509, 192 S. W. 646.

Maine. Deering v. Chapman, 22 Me. 488, 39 Am. Dec. 592.

Massachusetts. Holt v. O'Brien, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 311; Bishop v. Palmer, 146 Mass. 469, 4 Am. St. Rep. 339, 16 N. E. 299.

Michigan. Snyder v. Willey, 33 Mich. 483; Lyon v. Waldo, 36 Mich. 345; Mc-Nnmara v. Gargett, 68 Mich. 454, 13 Am. St. Rep. 355, 36 N. W. 218; Case v. Smith, 307 Mich. 416, 61 Am. St. Rep. 341, 31 L. R. A. 282, 65 N. W. 279; White Star Line v. Star Line, 141 Mich. 604, 113 Am. ft. Rep. 551, 105 N. W. 135; Anderson v. Branstrom, 173 Mich. 157, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 422, 139 N. W. 40; Simmer v. Cutter's Estate, 194 Mich. 34, 160 N. W. 605.

Minnesota. Handy v. St. Paul Globe Publishing Co., 41 Minn. 18S, 16 Am. St. Rep. 605, 4 L. R. A. 466, 42 N. W. 872.

Mississippi. Kosciusko Oil Mill & Fertilizer Co. v. Wilson Cotton Oil Co., TO Miss. 551, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1053, 43 So. 435; American Mfg. Co. v. Crescent Drug Co., 113 Miss. 130, L. R. A. 1917D, 482, 73 So. 883.

Missouri. Finck v. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. 244, 106 Am. St. Rep. 452, 86 S. W. 213; Malone v. The Fidelity Casualty Co., 71 Mo. App. 1.

Montana. Glass v. Basin & Bay State Mining Co., 31 Mont. 21, 77 Pac. 302; Hughes v. Mullins, 36 Mont. 267, 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 209, 92 Pac. 758.

Frauds.6 Under this statute this question may come up in several different ways:

(a) If the contract is oral, and some of the covenants are within the Statute of Frauds, the remaining covenants are unenforceable if the contract is entire,7 but enforceable if the contract is severable.8

(b) Under the section of the statute which concerns the sale of personal property, the question whether the contract is entire or not is important where the different articles sold are each below the price fixed by the statute for its operation, but the aggregate price exceeds such limit. In this case, if the contract is severable, it can be proved orally,9 but if entire, the Statute of Frauds applies, and the contract can not be proved unless that section has been complied with.10

(c) If personal property is delivered in part, as provided for by the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds, the whole contract is enforceable, if entire;11 while if severable, only that part

Nebraska. Padget v. O'Connor, 71 Neb. 314, 98 N. W. 870; Graham v. Hiesel, 73 Neb. 433, 102 N. W. 1010.

New Hampshire. Bixby v. Moor, 51 N. H. 402; Hill v. Hill, 74 N. H. 288, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 848, 67 Atl. 406.

New York. Foley v. Speir, 100 N. Y. 552, 3 N. E. 477; Hart v. City Theatres Co., 215 N. Y. 322, 109 N. E. 497.

Ohio. Crawford v. Wick, 18 0. S. 190, 98 Am. Dec. 103; Widoe v. Webb, 20 O. S. 431, 5 Am. Rep. 664; Davy v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co., 78 O. S. 256, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 443, 85 N. E. 504.

Oklahoma. Citizens' National Bank v. Mitchell, 24 Okla. 488, 103 Pac. 720; Davis v. Janeway, 55' Okla. 725, L. R. A. 1916D, 722, 155 Pac. 241; Stewart v. Rawleigh Medical Co., 58 Okla. 344, L. R. A. 1917A, 1276, 159 Pac. 1187.

Pennsylvania. Vandegrift v. Vande-grift, 226 Pa. St. 254, 75 Atl. 365; Shields v. Latrobe-McConnellsville Coal & Coke Co., 239 Pa. St. 233, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 38, 86 Atl. 784; Kuhn v. Buhl, 251 Pa. St. 348, 96 Atl. 977.

Tennessee. Arlington Hotel Co. v. Ewing, 124 Tenn. 536/ 38 L. R A. (N. S.) 842, 138 S. W. 954.

Texas. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. R. Co v. Hume, 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110; Segal v. McCall Co., 108 Tex. 55, 184 S. W. 188; Sabine Tram .Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837; McNeese v. Carver, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 89 S. W. 430.

Vermont. Cobb v. Cowdery, 40 Vt. 25, 04 Am. Dec. 370.

Washington. Tomkins v. Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., 96 Wash. 511, 165 Pac. 384.

West Virginia. Charleston Gas Co. v. Kanawha Gas Co.. 58 W. Va. 22, 112 Am. St. Rep. 936, 50 S. E. 876.

6 See Sec. 1425.

7 In re Kesslers Estate, 87 Wis. 660, 41 Am. St. Rep. 74, 59 X. W. 129.

8 Lowman v. Sheets, 124 Ind. 416, 7 L. R. A. 784, 24 N. E. 351.

9 Johnson v. Buchanan, 29 N. S. 27. 10Jenness v. Wendell, 51 N. H. 63,

12 Am. Rep. 48. See Sec. 1425.

11 United States. Garfield v. Paris, 96 U. S. 557, 24 L. ed. 821.

Iowa. Kaufman Bros. v. Farley Mfg. Co., 78 la. 679, 16 Am. St. Rep. 462, 43 N. W. 612.

Maine. Weeks v. (Me, 94 Me. 458, 80 Am. St. Rep. 410, 48 Atl. 107.

of it under which such delivery is made is enforceable,12 If one of the covenants has been performed in full, such performance may amount to technical part performance, or it may prevent the application of the Statute of Frauds on some other theory.13 If the contract is entire, such performance of one covenant may render the entire contract enforceable;14 while if the contract is severable, such performance may affect only the covenant which has thus been performed on the one side, leaving the remaining covenants of the contract subject to the application of the Statute of Frauds.15