It is, as has been said before,1 possible for one consideration to support two or more covenants.2 The fact that the parties have not apportioned the consideration between the different covenants is ordinarily sufficient, in the absence of other provisions of the contract which indicate a contrary intention, to show that the parties intended an entire contract.3 Contracts by which
7 Warehouse & Builders Supply Co. v. Calvin, 00 Wis. 523, 05 Am. St. Rep. 67, 71 N. W. 804.
8 Stein v. Steamboat Prairie Rose, 17 O. S. 472.
9 Johnson v. Fehsefeldt, 106 Minn. 202, 118 N. W. 707.
10 Cockley v. Brucker, 54 O S. 214, 44 N. E. 590.
11 Barnes v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354, 47 S. W. 408.
1 See Sec. 525.
Illinois. Bates Machine Co. v. Bates, 192 111. 138, 61 N. E. 518.
Kansas. Bank v. Rowlinson, 2 Kan. App. 82, 43 Pac. 304.
Ohio. Petersburg Fire Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co., 89 O. S. 365, L. R. A. 1915B, 536, 106 N. E. 33.
Oregon. House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89, 32 Pac. 1027.
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia Ball Club v Lajoie, 202 Pa. St. 210, 90 Am St. Rep. 627, 58 L. R. A. 227, 51 Atl. 973.
West Virginia. Rhoades v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 49 W. Va. 494, 87 Am. St. Rep. 826, 55 L. R. A. 170, 39 S. E. 209.
3 United States. Poynter v. United States, 41 Ct. Cl. 443.
Georgia. Spalding County v. Cham-berlin, 130 Ga. 649, 61 S. E. 533
Iowa. Galt v. Provan, 131 la. 277, 108 N. W. 760.
Maine. American Mercantile Exchange v. Blunt, 102 Me. 128, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 414, 66 Atl. 212.
Michigan. Lee v. Briggs, 99 Mich. 487, 58 N. W. 477; Mailhot v. Turner, 157 Mich. 167, 133 Am. St. Rep. 333, 121 N. W. 804.
New Jersey. International Signal Co. v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co., 89 N. J. Eq. 319, 104 Atl. 378.
New York. Johnston v. Trask, 116 N. Y. 136, 15 Am. St. Rep. 394, 5 L. R. A. 630, 22 N. E. 377.
A agrees to support B for life, or for a certain specified period, for an entire consideration, are treated as entire contracts.4 If the party who has agreed to furnish such support fails or refuses to perform in accordance with the contract.5 the party to whom such support is to be furnished may treat his as an entire breach, for which he may avoid the contract,6 or for which he may recover damages on the theory of a total breach.7
A contract to sell a number of articles at a gross price for all is generally inseverable.8 A contract to compromise a dispute over a number of patents by paying a certain rovalty upon each article sold, without apportioning such royalty among the different patents, is so far entire that the invalidity of a very few of such patents does not discharge the contract.9 A contract for shipping cattle and for transporting a caretaker, is entire if it is supported by the same consideration.10 A policy of insurance upon goods and a building is said to be entire if the premium is not apportioned.11 A contract by which A is to collect claims for B according to A's
North Carolina. Coggins v. Aetna Insurance Co, 144 N Car. 7, 110 Am. St Rep 924, 8 L R. A (N S) 839, 56 S E 506.
Ohio. Steamboat Wellsville v. Geisse, 3 O. S .333; Petersburg Fire Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co, 89 0. S. 365, L. R A. 1915B, 536, 106 N. E. 33.
Oklahoma. Davidson v. Gaskill, 32 Okla. 40, 38 L. R. A, (N.S.) 692, 121 Pac. 649.
Vermont. Spriggs' Admr. v. Rutland R. Co., 77 Vt. 347, 70 L. R. A. 930, 60 Atl 143; Waite v. Stanley, 88 Vt. 407, L. R A. 1916C, 886, 92 Atl. 633.
Washington. Loveland v. Reese Co., 105 Wash. 204, 177 Pac. 719.
West Virginia. Jameson v. Board of Education, 78 W. Va. 612, L. R. A. 1916F, 926, 89 S. E. 255.
Wisconsin. Sixta v. Ontonagon Valley Land Co., 157 Wis. 293, 147 N. W. 1042.
4Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74; Epperson v. Epperson, 108 Va. 471, 62 S. E. 344.
5 See Sec. 2930.
6 Epperson v. Epperson, 108 Va 471, 62 S E 344.
7 Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74.
8 Massachusetts. Miner v. Bradley, 39 Mass. (22 Pick ) 457; Clark v Baker, 46 Mass. 45 Met ) 452; Roach v. Lane. 226 Mass 595. 116 X. E. 470.
New Jersey. Kelly Construction Co. v. Hackensack Brick Co, 91 N. J L. 585, 2 A.L. R 685, 103 Atl. 417.
Ohio. Petersburg Fire Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co, 89 O S. 365, L. R. A. 1915B. 536, 106 N. E. 33.
Oregon, Sun Publishing Co. v. Minnesota Type Foundry Co., 22 Or. 49, 29 Pac. 6.
Vermont. Taplin v. Clark, 89 Vt. 226, 95 Atl 491.
Wisconsin. Krause v. Reichel, 167 Wis. 360, 167 N. W. 817.
9 International Signal Co. v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co., 89 N. J. Eq. 319, 104 Atl. 378.
lO Spriggs' Admr. v. Rutland R. Co., 77 Vt. 347, 70 L. R. A. 930, 60 Atl. 143.
11 Coggins v. Aetna Insurance Co., 144 N. Car. 7, 119 Am. St. Rep. 924, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 839, 56 S. E. 506.
system of collecting, is so far entire that it is discharged by subsequent legislation which prevents A from employing such system.12 The fact that separate bonds are given to secure performance of the contracts for the sale of the different tracts of land, does not make the contracts severable if a gross price is to be paid for all the tracts together.13 A contract to convey separate tracts of property,14 or to lumber several different sections of land,15 is an entire contract. A contract to decorate the walls of a room, to construct the woodwork, and to furnish the room, for a lump sum, is an entire contract.16 A contract whereby A agrees that B, during his first ten years' occupancy of certain premises, shall be exempt from borough taxation, and shall be supplied with water for the use of his business at a cost not exceeding one hundred dollars a year, is an entire contract.17 A contract by which A is to receive a certain interest in the estate of a decedent, and also all of B's title to certain personal property, and A agrees to give up all claims against the estate of such decedent and to give certain realty to B, is an entire contract.18 A contract whereby a broker agrees to buy bonds for a customer, and to take them off his customer's hands at any time, is entire.19 An offer of a reward for the arrest of two criminals is entire and no recovery can be had for the arrest of one.20 A contract to remove all parts of a wrecked vessel so that a certain depth of water shall be secured, which provides that payment shall be made when the work is completed, is an entire contract.21 A contract by which A agrees to put old machinery in running order and to supply new machinery, and B agrees to supply certain other new machinery, to pay a certain sum of money and to pay an extra amount for certain work and for new materials not specified in the contract, is an entire contract.22
12 American Mercantile Exchange v. Blunt, 102 Me. 128, 10 L. R. A. (N.8.) 414, 66 Atl. 212.
13 Tiernan v. Beam, 2 Ohio 383.
14 Kuhlman v. Wood, 81 la. 128, 46 N. W. 738; Tiernan v. Bean, 2 Ohio 383; Martin v. Fridenberg, 169 Pa. St. 447, 32 Atl. 429.
15 Lee v. Briggs, 99 Mich. 487, 58 N. W. 477.
16 Pitcairn v. Phillip Hiss Co., 113 Fed. 492, 51 C. C. A. 323.
17 Phoenix Silk Mfg. Co. v. Rollty, 187 Pa. St. 526, 41 Atl. 523.
18 Galt v. Provan, 131 la. 277, 108 N. W. 760.
19 Johnston v. Trask, 116 N. Y. 136, 15 Am. St. Rep. 394, 5 L. R. A. 630, 22 N. E. 377.
20 Blain v. Express Co., 69 Tex. 74, 6 S. W. 679.
21 Poynter v. United States, 41 Ct. CI. 443.
22 Steamboat Wellsville v. Geisse, 3 O. S. 333.