void

Void in such a context is the equivalent of voidable.

That which has no force or effect. "Void" is often loosely used in varied meanings, and applied indiiferently to a thing which has no force or effect, and is an absolute nullity, or to that which by reason of some inherent vice or defect, may be adjudged void by a court when the question is presented to it; 214 111. 395; often used in the sense of "voidable" (a. v.) 44 Pa. St. 15.

That which has no force or effect. This word is often used as in effect meaning “voidable” only; Bennett v. Mattingly, 110 In<L 202, 10 N. E. 299, 11 N. E. 792; and is seldom, unless in a very clear case, to be regarded as implying a complete nullity, but is to be taken in a legal sense, subject to a large qualification in view of all the circumstances calling for its application and the rights and interest to be affected in a given case; Brown v. Brown, 50 N. H. 552. See Kearney v. Vaughan, 50 Mo. 287. The term “void” can only accurately be applied to those contracts that have no effect whatsoever and which are mere nullities, such as those which are against law, illegal, criminal, or in contravention of law and incapable of confirmation or ratification; hence a married woman’s deed defectively acknowledged is not void; Downs v. Blount, 170 Fed. 15, 95 C. C. A. 289, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1076. It is rarely that things are wholly void and without force and effect as to all persons and for all purposes, and incapable of being made otherwise. Things are voidable which are valid and effectual until they are avoided by some act, while things are often said to be void which are without validity until confirmed; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542, 29 Sup. Ct 416, 53 L. Ed. 644. In 'formal instruments it has been held to mean voidable; 4 B. & Aid. 401; 4 Bing. N. C. 305; and in contracts of infants; 14 Ir. C. L. 61. When a condition of forfeiture in a contract of sale of real estate, declaring it to the benefit of the vendor, void means voidable, with an election in the vendor to waive or to insist upon the condition; Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U. S. 323, 30 Sup. Ot. 528, 54 L. Ed. 7S2, 19 Ann. Cas. 639. The distinction between void and voidable transactions is a fundamental one, though it is often obscured by carelessness of language. An act or agreement void from the beginning has no legal effect gt all except so far as any party to it incurs penal consequences. A voidable act on the contrary takes its full and proper legal effect unless, and until it is disputed, and set aside by some tribunal entitled so to do; Pollock, Contr. 9. A voidable contract has been defined to be such an agreement as that one of the parties is entitled at his option to treat as never having been binding on him; id. 9. As applied to contracts, the distinction between the terms void and voidable is often one of great practical importance, and wherever technical accuracy is required, the term void can only be properly applied to such contracts as are a mere nullity and incapable of ratification or confirmation; Allis v. Billings, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 417, 39 Am. Dec. 744. Agreements to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors are not void but merely voidable against the creditors, while valid between the parties; Pom. Contr. § 282. The distinction between contracts which are illegal and those which are void has never been precisely worked out, but where a contract is merely void, its defect in this respect cannot affect collateral transactions otherwise in themselves valid, while an unlawful purpose taints collateral and innocent transactions; 7 L. Quart. Rev. 339. The general rule of law is that a contract made in violation of a statute is void; Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 426, 12 Sup. Ct. 884, 36 L. Ed. 759, and cases cited; Lingle v. Snyder, 1 60 Fed. 627, 87 C. C. A. 529. Contracts which are void at common law, because they are against public policy, like contracts prohibited by statute, are illegal as well as void; Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 N. E. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 15 Am. St Rep. 159. See Ultra Vires. Among the contracts made illegal by statute are; those relating to usury; Fanning v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 122, 9 Am. Dec. 283; gaming contracts (see Gaming); wager contracts (see Wager); those which tend to promote champerty and maintenance ( q. v.), or those compounding felonies or suppressing public prosecution of criminals; 3 jp. Wins. 276; those in restraint of trade (q. v.); Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Cable Co., 76 Miss. 731, 26 South. 370, 45 L. R. A. 223. A contract binding the maker to do something opposed to the public policy of the state or nation, or which conflicts with the wants, interest, or prevailing sentiment of the people, or our obligations to the world, made; Greenh. Pub. Pol. Rule II., citing Jones v. Knowles, 30 Me. 402; and see Standard Lumber Co. v. Ice Co., 146 Fed. 359, 76 C. C. A. 639, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 467; and though made in another country where its validity is undoubted; L. R. 14 Ch. D. 351; Logan & Bryan v. Cable Co., 157 Fed. 570 (see Lex Loci). The assignor of a contract has no better rights therein than the party to it, even if he had no notice of its illegality; Stevens v. Wood, 127 Mass. 123. Among those contrary to public policy and illegal at common law are contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade, or of bidding at public auctions, or relating to marriage brokerage, to hinder legislation, whether public or private (see Lobbying), or to promote the appointment of a party to an office, to influence public elections to office, or to remunerate officers in addition to their lawful fees for acts which they are bound to do by virtue of their office or to assign fees and profits of official positions requiring personal supervision (see Officer); or any contract involving the sale of personal influence; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 276, 26 L. Ed. 539; Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. 427, 13

Null. Voidable: that may be annulled at pleasure. Void for remoteness: v. Perpetuity.