Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/146

130 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, opinion we read : " Any deed, therefore, by which a person binds himself not to employ his talents, his industry, or his capital in any useful undertaking in the Kingdom^ would be void, because no good reason can be imagined for any person's imposing such a restraint on himself." This implies that if there were, the restraint would be upheld. Horner v. Graves (1831).^ Assumpsit, on breach of agreement that defendant, a dentist, would abstain from practising over a district 200 miles in diameter. The condition was held to be unreasonable^ and therefore void. Tyndall, C. J., at p. 743, said: "But the greater question is, whether this is a reason- able restraint on trade. And we do not see how a better test can be applied to the question, whether reasonable or not, than by considering whether the restraint is such only as to afford a fair protection to the interests of the party in favor of whom it is given, and not so large as to interfere with the interests of the public. . . ." It follows, then, that if the restraint interferes with the interests of the public, it is unreasonable, and will not be upheld by the courts. This is to be borne in mind when we come to the question of the powers of the courts over our new-fashioned "trusts." Hitchcock V, Coker (1837).^ Assumpsit, for breach of agree- ment not to carry on the trade of a druggist in Taunton, or within three miles thereof. Held reasonable and valid. See a good state- ment of the law by Tyndall, C. J., at p. 454. Ward V. Byrne (i839).3 Debt on bond, the condition being that the defendant was not to follow the business of selling coal for nine months. Held void, because unreasonable , but not because it was unlimited in space. At p. 562 Parke, B., says: "The limit of the space is that which, according to the trade he carries on, is necessary for the protection of the party with whom the contract is made. . . .'* Whittaker v, Howe (1841).* Injunction. A restraint against prac- tising as a solicitor in all England was held reasonable and valid. Mallan v. May (1843).^ Covenant. An agreement not to carry on business as a dentist in London or in any towns or places in England or Scotland where the plaintiffs might practise, was held valid as to London, because reasonable, but invalid as to 1 7 Bing. 735. 8 5 M. & W. 548. 8 II M. & W. 653. a 6 Ad. & El. 438. * 3 Beav. 383.