the Connecticut River, and shall give the obligees all the freighting of his goods at customary price, etc., and shall not, directly or indirectly, aid, countenance, or promote any other boatman; a covenant by the purchaser of a steamboat that it should never be run on the upper Hudson; 2 an agreement by a physician transferring his practice and good-will to another physician for a price, and guaranteeing that "no other physician, for the space of four years, will establish himself in this place as a competitor, unless the increased population of the place should warrant it, or unless the purchaser should commit some act which shall forfeit to him the confidence of the community," and that if any such competitor do so establish himself, the former will repay the sum paid.3

A doctrine formerly prevailed that the restraint must not only be justifiable upon the above grounds, but must also be supported by an adequate consideration; that is to say, a consideration equivalent in value to the restraint imposed. But the doctrine has been overruled, and it is now held as to such contracts, as with all others, that, provided there be a legally valid consideration, the value or adequacy of it is a matter to be left to the agreement of the parties, and cannot be inquired into or made matter of objection in law.*

§ 2404. Contracts Unlimited as to Space, but Limited as to Time. A contract unlimited as to space, though limited in time, is held void; it is unreasonable, being more than the party requires for his protection. Thus the following agreements have been held void: That a person will not run a boat on any of the waters of the

state of California for the term of ten years from date;1 that he will not carry on the trade of a coal merchant for twenty years; or an innkeeper for ten years; or the manufacturing of dies for thirty years; a condition in a sale of a dry-goods business not to engage in that business for five years, with no limitation as to place. But in a recent case in New York, where the defendant sold his match-manufacturing business, with the good-will, to a corporation then engaged in the same business, and covenanted with the purchaser and its assigns not to engage within ninety-nine years in the like business, except for the purchaser, in any of the United States or territories except Nevada and Montana, the covenant was held valid."

§ 2405. Contracts Limited as to Space, but Unlimited as to Time. But it is no objection to a contract in restraint of trade, reasonably limited in point of space, that it is unlimited in point of time, and may therefore continue during the whole life of the party restrained. These agreements have therefore been held valid: The contract of a miller not to carry on the same business within thirty miles of Marion, Indiana; of an apothecary not to set up business within twenty miles of Aylesbury, England; of a butcher not to engage in the same business within five miles of the business sold;"0 of a physician not to practice within twenty miles of the residence. of the covenantee;" of a milliner not to carry on the same busi

8

ness, in the future, at any place which would interfere with the business sold;1 of an attorney not to solicit business in London, or one hundred and fifty miles around;2 of a saddler not to carry on business within ten miles of Croydon, England; or of a tanner, within twenty miles of Waterville, New York; not to sell liquors within one mile of Martinsville, Indiana; not to practice medicine within six miles of Chili, Illinois, or medicine within ten miles of Litchfield, Connecticut," or law within twenty-one miles of Torquay, England, or medicine within ten miles of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, or within fifteen miles of Fairfield, Indiana,10 or within twelve miles of Chandlerville, Pennsylvania;" not to trade as merchant within ten miles of Marion, Pennsylvania; 12 or to act as surgeon or apothecary within seven miles of Macclesfield, England; 13 never to practice dentistry in the village of L.,1 or medicine in a certain town; 15 never to practice law in Adell, Iowa; 16 not to carry on the grocery business in Springplace, Georgia;" or to carry on the well-driving business in Grand Haven, Michigan; 18 to discontinue a tavern in a town within half a mile of land sold; 19 not to trade in agricultural implements in Winterset, Iowa, and vicinity; 20 not to erect a tan-yard in Morganfield, Kentucky; " not to

1 Morgan v. Perhamus, 36 Ohio St. 517; 38 Am. Rep. 607.

2 Bunn v. Gay, 4 East, 190.

14

21

14 Cook v. Johnson, 47 Conn. 175; 36 Am. Rep. 64.

15 Doty v. Martin, 32 Mich. 462;

3 Jones v. Heavens, L. R. 4 Ch. Div. Dwight v. Hamilton, 113 Mass. 175;

Linn v. Sigsbee, 67 Ill. 75; Gilman v. Dwight, 13 Gray, 356; Mott v. Mott, 11 Barb. 127; Haldeman v. Simonton, 55 Iowa, 144; Miller v. Elliott, 1 Ind. 484; 50 Am. Dec. 475; Niver v. Rossman, 18 Barb. 50.

16 Smalley v. Greene, 52 Iowa, 241; 35 Am. Rep. 267.

17 Jenkins v. Temples, 39 Ga. 655; 99 Am. Dec. 482.

18 Hubbard v. Miller, 27 Mich. 15; 15 Am. Rep. 153.

19 Heichew v. Hamilton, 3 G. Greene, 596.

20 Hedge v. Lowe, 47 Iowa, 137. 21 Grundy v. Edwards, 7 J. J. Marsh. 368; 23 Am. Dec. 409.

trade as shoe-dealer in Addison, New York;1 not to deal in fancy-goods in Cincinnati, Ohio, or in agricultural implements in Richmond, Indiana,3 or in cabinet-ware in Buffalo, New York,' or in hardware in Hillsboro, Illinois;5 not to engage in the grocery business within certain limits in Boston, Massachusetts; not to practice as physician in Hastings, Michigan, or vicinity; not to carry on a business thereafter, "in the vicinity of Marlborough ";" not to work at the blacksmith trade within four miles of Postville, Iowa.9

In measuring the distance, the rule is to measure in a straight line as upon a map, and not according to the usual or practicable routes.10

12

$2406. Other Cases in Which an Unlimited or Partial Restraint is Valid. On the sale of a patent-right, the restraint may be unlimited during the life of the patent." Thus the following have been held valid: A covenant by the vendor on the sale of a patent that he will at no time "aid, assist, or encourage in any manner any competition" against the patent; a covenant by the vendor of a patent that he will not engage in business in opposition to the vendee." So on the sale of a secret process of manufacture of an article in general demand, which it is agreed shall be communicated for the exclusive benefit of the buyer, it becomes a reasonable and necessary stipulation that the seller shall not communicate the secret to any one, or carry on the manufacture in the future."4

13

Stafford v. Shortreed, 62 Iowa, 524. 10 Mouflet v. Cole, L. R. 8 Ex. 32; Duignan v. Walker, 28 L. J. Ch. 867.

Jones v. Lees, 1 Hurl. & N. 189; Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Pick. 443; 11 Am. Dec. 223.

12 Morse etc. Mac. Co. v. Morse, 103 Mass. 73.

13 Mackinnon Pen Co. v. Fountain Ink Co., 16 Jones & S. 442.

14 Leather Cloth Co. v. Lorsont, L. R. 9 Eq. 345; Bryson v. Whitehead, 1 Sim. & St. 74; Jarvis v. Peck, 10 Paige,

Where a contract is made for the employment of a person in a certain trade or business, it may be accompanied with an absolute and unlimited restraint against his carrying on the same trade or business for another person, or in any other way, during the employment or for a reasonable time after the term of service has elapsed.' So where A and B were rival manufacturers of washing-machines, a contract under which A discontinued business, and became B's partner for five years, a scale of selling prices. being agreed on, was not void as in restraint of trade.2 And it seems that an agreement that one person will trade only with another person for a definite or indefinite period is valid. Where a person agreed not to carry on the liquor business, the contract was held valid, on the ground that this business was not a trade to be encouraged."

ILLUSTRATIONS.-A physician agrees, on selling his drugstore, to send all his prescriptions to be filled by one druggist. The agreement is valid: Ward v. Hogan, 11 Abb. N. C. 478.

118; Vickery v. Welch, 19 Pick. 523; Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452; 96 Am. Dec. 664; Alcock v. Giberton, 5 Duer, 76; Brewer v. Lamar, 69 Ga. 656; 47 Am. Rep. 766.

1 Pilkington v. Scott, 15 Mees. & W. 657. Where the employment is for life, the restraint may be for life: Wallis v. Day, 2 Mees. & W. 273; Morris v. Colman, 18 Ves. 438; Stiff v. Cassel, 2 Jur., N. S., 348. In an English case, where a person, in consideration of obtaining employment from another, agreed that he would not for twelve months after leaving his employment sell similar goods within eight miles of the London post-office (Middleton v. Brown, 47 L. J. Ch. 411), the master of the rolls said: "I think that it is of the utmost importance to state that it is far more beneficial to men in the position of the defendant, in my opinion, that the order should be made, than that it should be refused. Men of this class obtain employment in certain terms, which prevent them on leaving that employment

from making use of the knowledge which they have acquired during the employment to set up in business against their master, and destroy his business. Now, if we said that no such agreement as this would be binding on the man who entered into it, the result might be that no such business would be carried on, and that the men would get no employment at all, and therefore if we are to consider the consequences of what we are doing, I think the balance of convenience or inconvenience would show that we ought strictly to enforce such contracts.

2 Dolph v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 553.