The greatest difficulty in determining the intention of the parties is found in cases in which certain provisions of the contract, such as the subject-matter and the like, tend to show that the contract is of one character, while other provisions, such as the apportionment or non-apportionment of the consideration, tend to show that it is of the other character. If a number of different articles are sold which can be used only in connection with one another, this fact is generally held to show that the parties intend an entire contract;1 and this inference, which arises from the nature of the subject-matter, is strong enough to overcome the inference of severable contracts, which arises from an apportionment of the consideration;2 and contracts of this sort are held to be entire even though the consideration may be apportioned between the different articles.3 The other provisions of the contract, however, such as the fact that the different articles are sold under separate warranties, or that express provision is made for replacing certain of the articles in case they prove defective, may show that the parties intended severable contracts.4

14 Mallory v. Mackaye, 92 Fed. 749, 34 C. C. A. 653.

15 Larkin v. Hecksher, 51 N. J. L. 133, 3 L. R. A. 137, 16 Atl. 703.

16 Crowl v. Goodenberger, 112 Mich. 683, 71 N. W. 485; Equitable Mfg. Co. v. Engelke, 68 N. J. L. 567 [sub nomine, Price v. Engelke, 53 Atl. 698].

17 Perry v. Ayers, 159 Cal 414, 114 Pac. 46; Pacific Timber Co. v. Iowa Windmill A Pump Co., 135 la. 308, 112 N. W. 771; Simonoff v. Parsons, 52 Okla. 600, 153 Pac. 152; Manss-Bruning Shoe Co. v. Prince, 51 W. Va. 510, 41 S. E. 907.

Contra, Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. v. Dennis Lumber Co., 188 Mich. 700, 2 A. L. R. 638, 154 N. W. 91.

18 Laclede Construction Co. v. Tudor Iron Works, 169 Mo. 137, 69 S. W. 384; Kelly Construction Co. v. Hackensack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417; Seibert v. Dunn, 216 N. Y. 237, 110 N. E. 447.

19 Kelly Construction Co. v. Hackensack Brick Co., 91 N. J. L. 585, 2 A. L. R. 685, 103 Atl. 417.

20 Co-operative Telephone Co. v. Katus, 140 Mich. 367, 112 Am. St. Rep. 414, 103 N. W. 814.

1 Boyd v. Second Hand Supply Co., 14 Ariz. 36, 123 Pac. 619; Robinson v. Berkley, 111 la. 550, 82 N. W. 972; Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Charleboia, 10 N. D. 446, 88 N. W. 80; Hart-Parr Co. v. Duncan, - Okla. -, 4 A. L. R. 1434, 181 Pac. 288.