VOCIFEROUS. In a statute forbidding the use of loud and vociferous language, mak ing a loud outcry ; clamorous ; noisy. Webst.; Anderson v. State (Tex.) 20 S. W. 359.
D. That which has no force or effect. This word is often used as in effect meaning "voidable" only ; Bennett v. Mattingly, 110 Ind. 202, 10 N. E. 299, 11 N. E. 792; and is seldom, unless in a very clear case, to be re garded as implying a complete nullity, but is to be taken in a legal sense, subject to a large qualification in view of all the circum stances calling for its application and the rights and interest to he affected in a given case; Brown v. Brown, 50 N. II. 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 in capable of confirmation or ratification ; hence a married woman's deed defectively acknowl edged 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 con firmed ; 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. & Ald. 401; 4 Bing. N. C. 395; and in contracts of infants; 14 Ir. C. L. 61.
When a condition of forfeiture in a con tract of sale of real estate, declaring it to be null and void in case of failure ou the part of the vendee to perform, is plainly for the benefit of the vendor, void means void able, with an election in the vendor to waive or to insist upon the condition; Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U. S. 323, 30 Sup. Ct. 528, 54 L. Ed. 782, 19 Ann. Cas. 639.
The distinction between void and voidable transactions Is a fundamental one, though it is often obscured by carelessness of lan guage. An act or agreement void from the beginning has no legal effect at all except so far as any party to it incurs penal conse quences. A voidable act on the contrary takes
its full and proper legal effect unless, and un til it is disputed, and set aside by some tribu nal 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 ap plied 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 con tracts as are a mere nullity and incapable of ratification or confirmation; Allis v. Bill ings, 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 bpen 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 in nocent 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, 160 Fed. 627, 87 C. C. A. 529. Con tracts which are void at common law, be cause 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 VIBES.
Among the contracts made illegal by stat ute are: those relating to usury; Fanning v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Qh. (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 sup pressing public prosecution of criminals; 3 P. Wms. 276; those in restraint of trade (q. v.); Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. Cable Co., 76 Miss. 731, 26 South. 370, 45 L. R. A. 223.