In determining whether a contract is entire or severable, the question is whether or not the parties intended to separate the different covenants into distinct contracts; and not whether the subject-matter is one which the parties could in fact have severed if they had wished to do so.1 Accordingly, performance of part of such contract gives no right of action upon the contract to the party so performing unless he has substantially performed the entire contract,2 in jurisdictions in which no quasi-contractual right arises in favor of the party in default.3 If realty which includes a homestead is leased, and as part of such contract an agreement is made for the sale of personal property which is upon such premises, the contract is entire; and if the lease is invalid as to the homestead, the entire contract may be avoided.4 A contract to sell eight hundred thousand feet of lumber at seven dollars and twenty-five cents per thousand,5 or a certain quantity of crushed stone at a certain price per cubic yard,6 or to remove all the dirt upon certain lots described, above a certain grade, being two thousand yards more or or less, at six cents a cubic foot,7 or to construct a heating plant, the materials and labor necessary for which were each separately valued by the parties,8 or to remove several buildings,9 are each entire contracts, although it is possible to sever the subject-matter. A contract for hiring a barge at a certain amount per day and fixing no specific time for the return of the barge, is an entire contract, so that one action can be brought for the breach thereof.10

11 Clark v. Neumann, 56 Neb. 374, 76 N. W. 892; Barry v. Wachosky, 57 Neb. 534, 77 N. W. 1080.

12 Clark v. Neumann, 56 Neb. 374, 76 N. W. 892.

13 Barry v. Wachosky, 57 Neb. 534, 77 N. W. 1080.

14 Sterling v. Gregory, 149 Cal. 117, 85 Pac. 305.

15 Sterling v. Gregory, 149 Cal. 117, 85 Pac. 305.

1 United States. International Contracting Co. v. United States, 47 Ct. CI. 158.

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

Illinois. Morris v. Wibaux, 159 111. 627, 43 N. E. 837.

Iowa. Bamberger Bros. v. Burrows, 145 la. 441, 124 N. W. 333.

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

Ohio. Stein v. Steamboat Prairie Rose, 17 O. S. 472.

West Virginia. Jameson v. Board of Education, 78 W. Va. 612, L. R. A. 1916F, 926, 89 S. E. 255.

Wisconsin, Prautsch v. Rasmuseen, 133 Wis. 181, 113 N. W. 416.

"The entirety of a contract depends on the intention of the parties and not on the divisibility of the subject. The severable nature of the latter may often assist in determining the intention but will not overcome the intent to make an entire contract when that is shown." Shinn v. Bodine, 60 Pa. 182, 185, 100 Am. Dec. 560; quoted in Easton v. Jones, 193 Pa. St. 147, 149, 44 Atl. 264.

A contract of employment for a certain length of time at a compensation payable at certain.intervals, is an entire contract within the application of these rules.11 A contract to work until a certain "crop should be gathered" is an entire contract.12 Accordingly, an employe who breaks such contract can not recover anything on the contract for services already rendered thereunder.13 Equity will not give him relief.14 A contract to work as a gardener for one year at fifty-five dollars a month, from March to November, and fifty dollars a month from then to March first, is an entire contract, and if it is renewed from year to year the employer can not during the year discharge the employe even on notice of a month or more.15

2 Illinois. Morris v. Wibaux, 159 111. 627, 43 N.'E. 837.

Montana. Riddell v. Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co., 27 Mont. 44, 69 Pac. 241.

Pennsylvania. Shinn v. Bodine, 60 Pa. St. 182, 100 Am. Dec. 560; East on v. Jones, 193 Pa. St. 147, 44 Atl. 264.

Wisconsin. Green v. Hanson, 89 Wis. S97, 62 N. W. 408; Widman v. Gay, 104 Wis. 277, 80 N. W. 450.

3 See ch. LXXXVIII.

4 Mailhot v. Turner, 157 Mich. 167, 133 Am. St. Rep. 333, 121 N. W. 804.

5 Easton v. Jones, 193 Pa. St. 147, 44 Atl. 264.

6 Prautsch v. Rasmussen, 133 Wis. 181, 113 N. W. 416.

7 Widman v. Gay, 104 Wis. 277, 80 N. W 450.

8 Riddell v. Ventilating Co., 27 Mont. 44, 69 Pac 241.

9 Green v. Hanson, 89 Wis. 597, 62 N. W. 408.

10 Stein v. Steamboat Prairie Rose, 17 O. S. 472.

11 California. Hutchinson v. Wet-more, 2 Cal. 310, 56 Am. Dec. 337.

New York. Reab v. Moor, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 337.

Ohio. Larken v. Buck, 11 O. S. 561.

Texas. Galveston County v. Ducie, 91 Tex. 665, 45 S. W. 798.

West Virginia. Jameson v. Board of Education, 78 W. Va. 612, L. R. A. 1916F, 926, 89 S. E. 255.

Wisconsin. Koplitz v. Powell, 56 Wis. 671, 14 N. W. 831.

12 Timberlake v. Thayer, 71 Miss. 279, 24 L. R. A. 231, 14 So. 446.

13 Timberlake v. Thayer, 71 Miss. 279, 24 L. R. A. 231, 14 So. 446.

Under an entire contract for the sale of a specified quantity of goods, the vendee is not obliged to accept less than the quantity contracted for.16 A contract for the sale of a certain quantity of goods is so far entire that it is generally held that the buyer can not accept a part of the goods and reject the rest.17 A contract to sell the materials necessary for a specific piece of work is entire,18 at least so far entire that the purchaser can not be compelled to pay for different instalments as delivered.19 If A subscribes for stock in a co-operative telephone company, as a part of the transaction by which he leases a telephone, the contract is entire.20