While the question of the apportionment of the consideration has not the importance in determining the entire or severable character of contracts for the purpose of performance that it has in determining such character with reference to illegality,1 the fact that the consideration is apportioned by the parties among the different covenants is generally sufficient to show, in the absence of other provisions in the contract indicating a contrary intention, that the different covenants form severable con-tracts.2 A contract by which A agrees to acquire interests for B in two or more different tracts of land, for which B is to furnish the money, is regarded as a severable contract.3 A contract for the loan of a certain sum of money, to be evidenced by a number of notes, is so far severable that the borrower, who has received a part of the loan, can not retain the amount loaned to him and refuse to pay the notes up to such amount because of the failure of the lender to advance the entire sum.4 Under an oil and gas lease in consideration of one dollar, and the covenants on the part of the lessee to complete a well in a certain period of time, it is held that the amount of one dollar is the consideration for granting Such period to the lessee in which to complete the well, and that the other covenants form the sole consideration for the lease.5 Accordingly, the failure of the lessee to complete such well is held to terminate his rights under the lease.6 A contract to erect a certain number of houses, at a fixed price for each house, contains severable covenants.7 However, a contract to do certain work on four houses at a lump sum, specifying, however, the price estimated for each separate house, has been held to be an entire contract, and a recovery for breach thereof is a bar to subsequent actions thereon.8 A contract by which one of the parties agrees to fill orders which the other may send in from time to time, is severable as to each separate order.9 A contract to sell a number of articles at a price fixed for each is usually a severable contract.10 A contract for the sale of an entire set of books, to be paid for in instalments, is so far severable that the price due for each instalment may be recovered before the entire set is delivered, and the seller is not restricted to his action to recover damages for breach of the contract.11 A contract for the sale of goods to be delivered in a certain number of instalments, for which the purchaser is to pay by giving his note for each instalment, is so far severable that damages arising on the second instalment can not be set off against the note which is given for the first instalment.12 A contract to make a sample machine and thirty others according to sample, the buyer to pay a certain sum for the sample machine "when delivered complete as per agreement," and a like sum for every other machine, is a severable contract.13 A contract whereby a railroad company agrees to construct a railroad in six distinct sections, and the county agrees to issue certain bonds of particular numbers, to be used in payment of each separate section, is a severable contract. Accordingly, if the county refuses to issue bonds for one of such sections because the entire amount would exceed the constitutional limit of indebtedness, the rest of such contract is not thereby discharged.14 A contract to make a sidewalk "ten feet wide and

--------- feet long," the length not being specified, is not an entire contract for the number of feet intended by the parties, and recovery can be had thereunder for work done.15 A contract to issue annual railroad passes for the life of the promisee has been held to be a severable contract as to each pass, so that a separate action can be brought for each breach.16

2 See {3003.

3 Inman Manufacturing Co. v. American Cereal Co., 124 la. 737, 100 N. W. 8C0; Hart-Parr Co. v. Duncan, -Okla -, 4 A. L. R. 1434, 191 Pac. 288.

4 See Sec. 3005.

1 See Sec. 1030 et seq. and 2089.

2 Arkansas. Less v English, 75 Ark. 288, 87 S. W. 447.

Illinois. Keeler v. Clifford, 165 111. 544, 46 N E 248.

Indiana. Weil v. Stone, 33 Ind. App. 112, 104 Am. St. Rep. 243, 69 N E. 608.

Iowa, McDaniels v. Whitney, 38 00; Comptograph Co. v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 179 la 83, 159 X. W. 465.

Massachusetts. Hill v. Rewee 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 268; Edward Thompson Co. v. Washburn, 191 Mass. 6, 77 N. E. 483; Barlow Mfg. Co. v. Stone, 200 Mass. 158, 86 N. E. 306; Mark v.

Stuart-Howland Co, 226 Mass. 35, 2 A. L R. 678, 115 N. E 42.

Missouri. Cantwell v. Crawley, 188 Mo. 44, 86 S. W. 251.

Montana. Mattison v. Connorly, 46 Mont. 103, 126 Pac. 851.

Nebraska. Burwell & Ord Irrigation & Power Co. v. Wilson, 57 Neb. 396, 77 N. W. 762.

New York. Pierson v. Crooks, 115 X. Y. 539, 12 Am. St. Rep. 831, 22 N. E. 349.

Ohio. Loomis v. Eagle Bank, 10 O. S. 327.

Pennsylvania. McLaughlin v. Hess, 104 Pa. St. 570, 30 Atl. 491.

Vermont. Scofield v. Grow, 63 Vt. 283, 22 Atl. 457.

Washington. Godefroy v. Hupp, 93 Wash. 371, 160 Pac. 1056.

West Virginia. Dillon v. Suburban Land Co., 73 W. Va. 363, 80 S. E. 471; Parkersburg & Marietta Sand Co v. Smith, 76 W. Va. 246, 85 S. E. 516.

3 Cantwell v. Crawley, 1SS Mo. 44, 86 S. W. 251.

4 Less v. English, 75 Ark. 288, 87 S.

W. 447.

5 Brown v. Wilson, 58 Okla. 302, L. R. A. 1917B, 1184, 160 Pac. 94.

6 Brown v. Wilson, 58 Okla. 392, L. R. A. 1917B, 1184, 160 Pac. 94.

7 Barnard v. McLeod, 114 Mich. 73, 72 N. W. 24.

8 Broxton v. Nelson, 103 Ga. 327, 68 Am. St. Rep. 97, 30 S. E. 38.

9 Badger v. Titcomb, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 409, 26 Am. Dec. 611; Bowker v. Hoyt, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 555; Knight v. New England Worsted Co., 56 Mass. (2 Cush.) 271; Young &

Conant Mfg. Co. v. Wakefield, 121 Mass. 91; Raphael v. Reinstein, 154 Mass. 178, 28 N. E. 141; West End Mfg. Co. v. P. R. Warren Co., 198 Mass 320, 84 N. E. 488; Barlow Mfg. Co. v. Stone, 200 Mass. 158, 86 N. E. 306; Hetherington v. William Firth Co., 212 Mass. 257, 98 N. E. 797; Mark v. Stuart-Howland Co., 226 Mass. 35, 2 A. L. R. 678, 115 N. E. 42.

10. A K. Young & Conant Mfg. Co. v. Wakefield, 121 Mass. 91; Edward Thompson Co. v. Washburn, 191 Mass. 6, 77 N. E. 483; Pierson v. Crooks, 115 N. Y. 539, 12 Am. St. Rep. 831, 22 N. E. 349; Reeves v. Block, 31 8. D. 60, 139 N. W. 780.