All presumptions will be made in favor of upholding the contract. Where the language of an instrument is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will render it valid and the other invalid, the former will be adopted.13 For example, where one construc-tion would render the contract invalid under the statute of frauds, another construction will be preferred.14

The presumption in favor of the legality of the contract is even stronger than that in favor of its validity. The courts will never hold that the parties intended to create an illegal contract, if any other construction is possible.15

10 Heywood vs. Perrin, 10 Pick 228; 20 Am. Dec, 518.

11 Thurman vs. Cooper, 2 Rolle, 23;

Isham vs. Morgan, 9 Conn., 374; Duncan vs. Charles, 5 I11., 561; Leach vs. Leach, 4 Ind., 628; Newall vs. Wright, 3 Mass. 138 12 Joy vs. St. Louis, 138 U. S., 1.

13 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Vol.

XVII, p. 17; Pitney vs. Bolton, 45 N. J. Eq., 639; Post vs. Hover, 33 N. Y., 593; Coyne vs. Weaver, 84 N. Y., 386.

14 Adams vs. Adams, 26 Ala., 272;

Phipps vs. McFarlane, 3 Minn., 109.

The courts will also endeavor to so construe a contract as to render it effective rather than inoperative.16 The presumption is also against any construction which would work a forfeiture.17