Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/145

129 CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 129 (Hull), as is explained in the note, p. 240, 4 Law Q. Rev. This is the picturesque case, so to speak, often referred to, in which this same judge swore, "per dieu si le pi' fuit icy il irra al prison tanzgr. il uest fait fine au Roy " ! No extended argument could so well show with what disfavor courts of old looked upon condi- tions in restraint of trade. ^ In the leading case of Mitchel v. Reynolds,^ Parker, C. J., says that in many instances the general restraint throughout all Eng- land can be of no use to the obligee, — "for what .does it signify to a tradesman in London what another does at Newcastle?" — thereby implying that if it did signify, the rule would not apply. He adds, " And surely it would be unreasonable to fix a certain loss on one side without any benefit to the other." The question of the reasonableness of the condition in dispute is therefore here brought out as one of the points to be examined and determined. Yet for a long time this would seem to have been forgotten. But, little by little, courts, at first insensibly, then more of set purpose, inquired into the reasonableness of the particular condition restrain- ing trade in question in each particular case, until now, as we shall see when we come to the late cases, the true test is recognized to be that of reasonableness. Let us briefly review a few of the cases. Mitchel V. Reynolds (1711).^ Debt on bond. An unlimited restraint as to space was held void, while a limited restraint was held good. Bunn V. Guy (1803).* In chancery, on a question of the mar- shalling of assets. An agreement not to practise law within 150 miles of London was held valid. Pierce t;. Fuller (1811).^ Debt. An agreement not to run a stage on a certain route was held valid, because reasonable and useful (p. 226). Stearns v. Barrett (1823).^ Covenant. An agreement for the exclusive use in two of the United States of certain machines by one party, and the same by the other party in the other States, was held valid (p. 450). Homer v. Ashford (1825).'' Covenant. At p. 326 of the 1 And see also the statement of the law by Morton, J., in 1837, in Alger z/. Thatcher, 19 Pick. 51. 2 I P. Wms. 181, at p. 191. * 8 Mass. 223. 8 I P. Wms. 181. « 1 Pick. 443.
 * 4 East, 190. 7 3 Bing. 322.