Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Effect-Of-Illegality-Part-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:54:59+00:00

Document:
If a promise to do several acts is indivisible, and is in part illegal, if cannot be enforced as to that part which is legal, but the whole agreement is void.83 This rule is too clear to need explanation. The only difficulty is in determining whether the promise is divisible; but this is a question of interpretation of contracts.
83 Crawford v. Morrell, 8 Johns. (N. T.) 253; Thayer v. Rock, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 53; Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19, 51 Am. Dec. 333; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. G39, 19 Sup. Ct. 839, 43 L. Ed. 1117; Foote v. Nickerson, 70 N. H. 496, 48 Atl. 1088, 54 L. R. A. 554; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Berlin, 90 Fed. 779, 33 C. C. A. 274; Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Indiana Ry. Co. (Ind. App.) 70 N. E. 843, 846 [quot. proposition of text from Clark on Contracts (1st Ed.) 472]. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 137; Cent. Dig. §§ 701-712.
84 Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Indiana Ry. Co. (Ind. App.) 70 N. E. 843, 846 [quot. proposition of text from Clark on Contracts (1st ed.) 473]; State v. Wilson, 73 Kan. 334, SO Pac. 639, 84 Pac. 737, 117 Am. St. Rep. 479 [cit. Clark on Contracts (1st Ed.) 471]; Featherston v. Hutchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199; TRIST v. CHILD, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. Ed. 623, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 241; State v. Board, 35 Ohio St., at page 519; Bixby v. Moor, 51 N. H. 402; Wisner v. Bardwell, 38 Mich. 278; Saratoga County Bank v. King, 44 N. Y. 87; Bredin's Appeal, 92 Pa. 241, 37 Am. Rep. 677; Sumner v. Summers, 54 Mo. 340; Perkins v. Cummings, 2 Gray (Mass.) 258; BISHOP v. PALMER. 146 Mass. 409. 16 N. E. 299, 4 Am. St. Rep. 339, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 290; McQuade v. Rosecrans, 36 Ohio St. 442; Tobey v. Robinson, 99 I11. 222; James v. Jellison, 94 Ind. 292, 48 Am. Rep. 151; Ricketts v. Harvey, 106 Ind. 564, 6 N. E. 325; Haynes v. Rudd, 102 N. Y. 372, 7 N. E. 287, 55 Am. Rep. 815; Pettit's Adm'r v. Pettit's Distributees, 32 Ala. 288; Woodruff v. Hinman, 11 Vt 592, 34 Am. Dec. 712; Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 85; Gage v. Fisher, 5 N. D. 297, 65 N. W. 809, 31 L. R. A. 557; Edwards Co. v. Jennings, 89 Tex. 618, 35 S. W. 1053; Geer v. Frank, 179 I11. 570, 53 N. E. 965, 45 L. R. A. 110. But see Pierce v. Pierce, 17 Ind. App. 107, 46 N. E. 480; Fishell v. Gray, 60 N. J. Law, 5, 37 Atl. 606; Rosen-baum v. Credit System Co., 65 N. J. Law, 255, 48 Atl. 237, 53 L. R. A. 449; King v. King, 63 Ohio St. 363, 59 N. E. Ill, 52 L. R. A. 157, 81 Am. St. Rep. 635. Thus, in Kansas, it is held that a chattel mortgage is entirely void if illegal as to one of the articles mortgaged (intoxicating liquors). Gerlach v. Skinner, 34 Kan. 86, 8 Pac. 257, 55 Am. Rep. 240; Flersheim v. Gary, 39 Kan. 178, 17 Pac. 825. No recovery, for instance, can be had on the quantum meruit for services rendered in the grocery part of the business under a contract to work for agreed wages as bartender and clerk for a dealer in groceries and liquors, the sale of the latter being prohibited. Sullivan v.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 137
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.