Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/147

CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, 131 the rest, because unreasonable. The old notion that a restraint unlimited as to space is necessarily invalid may be said to have been destroyed by this time. Neither of these restraints were unlimited as to space, yet one was held, valid because reasonable, while the other was held invalid because unreasonable. At p. 667 Parke, B., says : "We conceive that it would be better to lay down such a limit as under any circumstances would be sufficient pro- tection to- the interest of the contracting party, and if the limit stipulated for does not exceed that, to pronounce the contract to be valid." Jarvis v. Peck (1843).^ Bill in equity, in a foreclosure suit on bond and mortgage, the condition being that the defendants would not use a certain method of converting cast iron into malleable iron. Held valid, as a sale of a business secret, although un- limited in time or space. Green v. Price (1845).^ Covenant. An agreement not to carry on the trade of a perfumer within the cities of London or West- minster, or within 600 miles thereof, was held to consist of divis- ible covenants, good as to London and Westminster, but bad as to the rest ; following Mallan v. May, supra} If the rule were, as commonly stated, that a restraint limited as to space is valid, but one unlimited as to space is void, both restraints in these two cases would be held invalid. But one is valid because reasonable, the other is invalid because unreasonable, Lawrence z;. Kidder (185 1).* Covenant or assumpsit. On de- murrer to the declaration. An agreement not to manufacture or sell palm-leaf beds, etc., for five years in all the territory west of Albany, in the State of New York, was held invalid, the restriction embracing too large a territory. Now, if there were any such a general principle as that sometimes asserted, that a condition in restraint of trade is valid if it covers less than the whole State or Nation, while it is invalid if it covers the whole State or Nation, this case cannot stand. It can only be supported upon the ground that the condition was unreasonable, with all that follows therefrom ; i.e., that it was more than was necessary for the protection of the complainant, and was injurious to the public. Dunlop V. Gregory (185 1).** Covenant. A contract not to run steamboats between New York and Albany was held valid, 1 10 Paige, 118. 2 13 M. & W. 695, affirmed 16 M. & W. 346. 8 II M. & W. 653. * 10 Barb. 641. 6 6 Selden, 241.