Li  Curtis  v.  Leavitt  15  N.  Y.  96,
Comstock,  J.,  said:  "A  docti'ine
which  is  expressed  in  the  words
'  void  in  part,  void  in  toto,^  has  often
found  its  way  into  books  and  judi-
cial opinions  as  descriptive  of  the
effect  which  a  statute  may  have
upon  deeds  and  other  insti'uments
which  have  in  them  some  forbidden
vice.  There  is,  however,  no  such
general  principle  of  law  as  the
maxim  would  seem  to  indicate.  On
the  conti'ary,  the  general  ride  is  that
if  the  good  be  mixed  with  the  bad  it
shall  nevertheless  stand,  ijrovided  a
separation  can  be  made.  The  excep-
tions are,  first,  where  a  statute  by
its  express  terms  declares  tlie  whole
deed  or  contract  void  on  account  of
some  provision  wliich  is  imlawfvd;
and  second,  where  there  is  some  all-
pervading  vice,  such  as  fraud,  for  ex-
ample, wliich  is  condemned  by  the
common  law,  and  avoids  all  parts  of
tlie  ti'ansaction  because  all  ai-e  alike
infectecL"

1  Dmyee  v.  Mayor,  etc.  96  N.  Y.  477 ;
Re  Groff,  21  Neb.  647.
2Meshmeier  v.  State,  11  Lid.  485;
Burkholtz  v.  State,  16  Lea,  71 :  Bittle
V.  Stuart  34  Ai-k.  224;  Allen  v.
Louisiana,  103  U.  S.  80;  People  v.
Porter,  90  N.  Y.  68.
232  STATUTES    VOID    IN    PAKT.
