Subscriptions to shares in a chartered company are said to rest upon sufficient con sideration ; for the company is obliged to give the subscriber his shares, and he must pay for them; Pars. Contr. 377; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94, 8 Am. Dec. 128; New Bedford & B. Turnpike Corp. v. Adams, 8 Mass. 138, 5 Am. Dec. 81; Curry v. Rogers, 21 N. H. 247 ; Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 34 Me. 360 ; Barnes v. Perine, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 249; Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787, 39 Am. Dec. 344; State Treasurer v. Cross, 9 Vt. 289, 31 Am. Dec. 626.
On the subject of voluntary subscriptions for charitable purposes there is much con fusion among thp authorities; Ives v. Sterl ing, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 310. A promise of a subscription for the purchase of a church site, followed by the subsequent contract of the church for the land, is supported by a valid consideration ; First Universalist Church v. Pungs, 126 Mich. 670, 86 N. W. 235. See SUBSCRIPTION.
Illegal considerations can be no founda tion for a contract. Violations of morality, decency, and policy are in contravention of common law : as, contracts to commit, con ceal, or compound a crime. So, a contract for future illicit intercourse, or in fraud of a third party, will not be enforced. Ex tur pi contractu non, oritur actio. But the act in question is not always a criterion; e. g. as to immoral considerations that which the law considers is whether the promise has a tendency to produce immoral results ; hence while a promise of future illicit co habitation is an illegal considAation ; L. R.
16 Eq. 275; Boigneres v. Boulon, 54 Cal. 146; Baldy v. Stratton, 11 Pa. 316; Harri man, Cont. 114 ; but a promise founded upon past illicit cohabitation is not illegal; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 329; but simply voluntary and governed by the same rules as other past executed considerations; Poll. Cont. 262. The illegality created by statute exists when the statute either ex pressly prohibits a particular thing, or af fixes a penalty which implies prohibition, or implies such prohibition from its object and nature; 10 'Ad. & E. 815; Donallen v. Len: nox, 6 Dana (Ky.) 91; Brown's Adm'rs v. Langford's Adm'rs, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 500 ; Town of Hinesburgh v. Sumner, 9 Vt. 23, 31 Am. Dec. 599; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 258, 6 L. Ed. 468 ; Deering v. Chapman, 22 Me. 488, 39 Am. Dec. 592 ; Gamble v. Grimes, 2 Ind. 392; President, etc., of Spring field Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322; Sharp v. Teese, 9 N. J. L. 352, 17 Am. Dec. 479; Aspin wall v. Meyer, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 186; Hale v.
Henderson, 4 Humphr. (Tenn.) 199; Lewis v. Welch, 14 N. H. 294 ; Caldwell v. Wentworth, id. 435: Cornwell v. Holly, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 47; Solomons v. Jones, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 54, 5 Am. Dec. 538 ; Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 421, 12 Sup. Ct. 884, 36 L. Ed. 759. If any part of the consideration is void as against the law, it is void in toto; Woodruff v. Hin man, 11 Vt. 592, 34 Am. Dec. 712; Allen v. Pearce, 84 Ga. 606, 10 S. E. 1015 ; see Wilcox v. Daniels, 15 R. I. 261, 3 Atl. 204; Buck v. Abbee, 26 Vt. 184, 62 Am. Dec. 564; Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431, 5 Am. Rep. 664; Hazelton v. Sheckels, 202 U. S. 71, 26 Sup. Ct. 567, 50 L. Ed. 939, 6 Ann. Cas. 217; but contra, if the promise be divisible and ap portionable to any part of the considera tion, the promise so far as not attributable to the illegal consideration might be valid; Leake, Contr. 631; 2 M. & G. 167.
A contract founded upon an impossible consideration is void. Lew nentinem cogit ad vans aut impossibilia; 5 Viner, Abr. 110, 111, Condition (C) a, (D) a; 1 Rolle, Abr. 419; Co. Litt. 206 a; 2 B. & C. 474; Leake, Contr. 719. But such impossibility must be a natural or physical impossibility; 7 Ad. & B. 798; Youqua v. Nixon, 1 Pet. C. C. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 18,189; 2 Moore & S. 89; 9 Bingb. 68 ; but it may be otherwise when the con sideration is valid at the time the contract was formed, but afterwards became im possible ; Leake, Contr. 719.
An executory consideration which has totally failed will not support a contract when the performance of the consideration forms a condition precedent to the perform ance of the promise; 2 C. B. 548; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Beebe, 7 N. Y. 369; Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. 14; Woodward v. Cow ing, 13 Mass. 216 ; Pettibone v. Roberts, 2 Root (Conn.) 258 ; Dean v. Mason, 4 Conn. 428, 10 Am. Dec. 162 ; Boyd v. Anderson, 1 Ov. (Tenn.) 438, 3 Am. Dec. 762; Treat v. Inhabitants of Orono, 26 Me. 217; Charlton v. Lay, 5 Humphr. (Tenn.) 496; Cabot v. Haskins, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 83; Jarvis v. Sut ton, 3 Ind. 289. Sometimes when the con sideration partially fails, the appropriate part of the agreement may be apportioned to what remains, if the contract is capable of being severed ; 4 Ad. & E. 605; 8 M. & W. 870; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 198, 25 Am. Dec. 378; Carleton v. Woods, 28 N. H. 290; Frazier v. Thompson, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 235 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 491; 1 Q. B. Div. 679 ; Wilson v. Hentges, 26 Minn. 288, 3 N. W. 338. See BREACH.