Vocatiow

See Business; Happiness; Tax, 2; Trade. VOID; VOIDABLE.2 As employed in contracts, laws, decisions, and text-books these words are often ambiguous. They have been more or less interchanged in speaking of agreements, assignments, conveyances, sales, leases, orders, judgments, and other acts, transactions, and proceedings where incapacity, irregularity, or actual or imputed fraud is present. Void. Properly, of no legal force, null, incapable of confirmation or ratification; often, voidable or capable of being avoided.^ Said of an act of no effect at all — a nullity ah initio.^ Whenever entire technical accuracy is required, only applied to contracts that are of no effect whatever— mere nullities, incapable of confirmation or ratification ^ But also used in the sense of Voidable. Whatever may be avoided; not absolutely null and invalid: ^ as, in saying that fraud renders a contract voidable at the option of a party defrauded; ' that an unauthorized contract by a trustee is voidable, and not necessarily void.' A transaction void for unlawfulness cannot be bettered by ratification.* A judgment may be erroneous and not void, and it may be erroneous because void. The distinctions between void and merely voidable judgments are nice, and they may fall under the one class or the other as they are differently regarded. ' ° 1 [Exp- Arohy, 9 Cal. 168 (1858). ^ F. ooide; L. viduus, bereft, empty. » [Van Schaack v. Eobbins, 36 Iowa, 303-5 (1873), cases. * [Inskeep v. Lecony, 1 N. J. L. 113 (1791). » Allis V. Billings, 6 Mete. 417 (1843). "Brown v. Brown, 50 N. H. 652 (1871); Kearney d. Vaughan, 50 Mo. 287 (1872). ' Foreman v. Bigplow, 4 Cliff. 541 (1878), cases. e United States v. Schnrz, 102 U. S. 400 (1880). A thing is "void" which is done against law, at the time of doing it, and where no person is bound by the act. A thing is ' ' voidable '' which is done by a person who ought not to have done it, but who, nevertheless, cannot avoid it himself, after it is done. Whenever the act takes effect as to some purposes, and is void as to persons who have an interest in impeaching it, it is not a nullity, and, therefore, is not utterly void, but merely voidable. Another test of a void act or deed is, every stranger may take advantage of it; not so as to a voidable one.i ' In some cases it is said that fraud in procuring a contract makes it "void," in others, only "voidable." While a conveyance which is made in fraud of creditors is usually called "void," in many cases "voidable "is designedly substituted. Provisions in leases are common that for non-performance of a covenant the lease shall bp "void," yet the word is perhaps generally held to mean " voidable." And "voidable " is now the usual predicate of contracts by infants. These instances reveal the general principle that the persons intended to be wronged by the particular transaction are not bound by it, also that they are not bound to reject it: they may adopt it, after they learn of it. Contracts absolutely void are contracts to do an illegal act, or to omit a legal public duty. They have no legal sanction; they establish no legitimate bond or relation between the parties. ^ That is absolutely void which the law or the nature of things forbids to be enforced at all; that is relatively void which the law condemns as wrong to individuals, and refuses to enforce as against them. It is void because absolutely or relatively invalid or not binding. 2 In all contracts, when stipulations are inserted for the sole benefit of one of the parties, the word " void " will be construed "voidable." Thus, an insurer may waive a breach of the contract and continue the policy in force. 3 The fact that one promise is illegal will not render a disconnected promise void. But the doctrine does not embrace cases where the objectionable stipulation is for the performance of an immoral or criminal act, for such an ingredient taints the entire contract; nor in general, will it apply where a part of the considera tion is illegal. Many decisions hold that where there are several considerations, and one is illegal, the ' Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. *528 (1820), Spencer C. J. See also Somes v. Brewer, 2 Pick. 191 (1824) Crocker v. Bellangee, 6 Wis. 'ees (1858). 2 PearsoU v. Chapin, 44 Pa. 13-16 (1862), cases, Lowrie, C. J. See also Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 148-49 (1833), Matthews,, J. 2 Turner v Meridan Fire Ins. Co., 16 F. E. 454 (1883), ■whole agreement is void; because it is impossible to say how much or how little weight the void portion had in inducing the contract.* See Avoid, 1; Confirmation, 1; Legal, Illegal; Ratification; Trcst; Usns, Utile, etc.; Valid.