Indivisible

That cannot be separated. The effect of the breach of a contract depends in a large degree upon whether it is to be regarded as indivisible or divisible; i. e. whether it forms a whole, the performance of every ptfrt of which Is a condition precedent to bind the other party or is composed of several independent parts’, the performance of any one of which will bind the other party pro tanto. This question is one of construction, and depends on the circumconcerned, or the sum of the acts to be done, Is of the essence of the contract It depends, therefore, in the last resort simply upon the Intention of the parties; Broumel v. Rayner, 68 Md. 47, 11 Atl. 833; Wooten v. Walters, 110 N. C. 251, 14 S. E. 734, 736.

See 9 Q. B. D. 648; Gill v. Lumber Co., 15]» Pa. 534, 25 Atl. 120; Norrlngton v. Wright 116 U. S. 188, 6 Sup. Ct 12, 29 L. Ed. 366; Barrie v. Earle, 143 Mass. 1, 8 N. E. 639, 58 Am. Rep. 126; King Philip Mills v. Slater, 12 R. I. 82, 34 Am. Rep. 603; Pope v. Porter, 102 N. Y. 366, 7 N. E. 304.

When a consideration is entire and indivisible, and It is against law, the contract Is void in toto; Woodruff v. Hinman, 11 Vt 592, 34 Am. Dec. 712; Frazier v. Thompson, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 235. When the consideration is divisible, and part of it is illegal, the contract Is void only pro tanto. In such case, it has been said, the connection between the different contracts is physical, not legal.

See, generally, Harr. Contr. 132; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (D. S.) 220, 17 L. Ed. 530.

To ascertain whether a contract is divisible or indivisible is to ascertain whether it may or may not be enforced in part, or paid part, without the consent of the other party. See Entibett; Independent Pbom-