CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, 135 Space. This was done advisedly, to show that the true question is that of reaso7tablenesSj and not of limit in space. We will now examine the recent leading cases which, I submit, establish the law in consonance with the views herein expressed. Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v, Winsor (i 873), ^ overruling Wright V. Ryder.2 An agreement not to run a certain steamboat within the waters of California for ten years was held valid. In the excellent opinion of the court by Bradley, J., although the element of reason- ableness is admitted (p. 69), we find the common error as to the law on this subject again perpetuated (p. 6y). '* A contract, even on good consideration, not to use a trade anywhere in England, is held void in that country, as being too general a restraint of trade," etc. The opinion is important because it recognizes the fact that this is substantially one country, and that it would in- volve too narrow a view of the subject to condemn as invalid any contract not to carry on a particular business within a par- ticular State (p. 57). A broader view must guide us, in the pre- sent day of extended commerce, telegraphs, railroads, etc. ; for the limits that were unreasonable fifty years ago are plainly reason- able now. Roussillon v. Roussillon (1880).^ An unlimited restraint against selling certain champagne was held reasonable and valid. Let it not be urged that this case has been overruled by the later case of Davies v. Davies.* ** While Cotton, L. J., showing great willingness, if not anxiety, to overrule it, based his opinion upon the ground that the restriction was void, because unlimited in space, Bowen, L. J., did not put his decision on that ground, and Fry, L. J., adhered to his opinion in Roussillon v, Roussillon. That Davies V. Davies was not received in England as overruling the last- named case, see note to this case in Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, p. 240." ^ The case of Roussillon v. Roussillon is a very strong one, and without quoting from it at length, I would, however, call attention to the masterly comparison of the conflicting cases by Fry, J., and the conclusion he comes to, i, e., there is no absolute rule that a covenant in restraint of trade is void if it is unlimited in regard to space. 1 20 Wall. 64. « L. R. 14 Ch. D. 351. 2 36 Cal. 342, above cited. * L. R. 36 Ch. D. 359.
- By Stiness, J., in Herreshoff v. Boutineau (R. I., April 14, 1890), 19 Atl. Rep.
p. 712, at 713. This case will be cited again in its order.
