Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/148

132 132 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. because reasonable, and the restraint of the covenantor was not larger than is necessary for the protection of the covenantee. Tajlis V. Tallis (1853).^ Covenant. An agreement not to can- vass for the sale of books in London or within 150 miles of the general post-office, or in Dublin or Edinburgh, or within 50 miles of either, or in any town of Great Britain or Ireland in which the plaintiff might have an establishment, was held good, on demurrer, it not appearing that the restraint was unreasonable. Whitney ^'. Slayton {1855).^ Debt on bond. An agreement not to engage in the business of casting iron within 60 miles of Calais, Me., for ten years (it not being a part of the State densely inhab- ited), was held valid ; not because limited in space (as well as in time), but because it was a reasonable restriction. Alcock V. Giberton (1855).^ Assumpsit. On demurrer to the declaration. An agreement not to make porcelain teeth (unlimited in time or space) was held valid. The decision of the court below, based upon the test whether the contract would be prejudicial to the public interest, was sustained. What is this but another way of saying that the contract was a reasonabh one } This case is sometimes cited as sustainable upon the ground that it was a sale of a trade secret ; but the opinion does not rest upon this ground. Jones V. Lees (1856).* Covenant. An agreement not to make or sell slubbing-machines during the fourteen years of the patent, without using plaintiff's invention, was held valid, because reason- able, although unlimited as to space. Pollock, C. B., said : '* If the covenant had been that neither the defendant nor his ex- ecutors would make any of these machines for a thousand years, that would, no doubt, have been an unreasonable restraint. . . ." Mumford v. Getling (1859).^ Assumpsit, for the recovery of fifty pounds stipulated damages, the defendant having, in viola- tion of his agreement, travelled for another house. Held valid, because reasonable. Harms v. Parsons (1863).^ Bill in equity to rectify an assign- ment. An agreement not to buy, sell, or manufacture horse- hair stuff except for the benefit of the plaintiffs, within 200 miles of B., was held valid, because reasonable. The brief statement at p. 248 of the argument of the counsel for the complainant 1 E. & B. 391. 8 5 Duer, 76. ^ 7 c. B. n. s. 305. 2 40 Me. 224. 4 I H. & N. 189. 6 32 L. J. Ch. 247.