(b) Steams v. Barrett, 1 Pick. 443. And see Thomas v. Miles, 3 Ohio State, 274; Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480.

It has recently been held in England, that an agreement by eighteen mill-owners, to be governed, as to wages and the general management of their works, by a majority of the parties to it, for the purpose of more effectually resisting a combination of the work people, was void as in restraint of trade. (e)

(c) Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. + Lawrence v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641; Mott v. Mott, 11 Barb. 127: Van Marter v. Babcock, 28 Barb. 688; Beard v. Dennis, 6 Ind. 200.

(cc) Taylor v. Blanchard, 18 Allen, 870. (cd) McClurg's Appeal, 58 Penn. St 51.

(ce) Wright v. Rider, 86 Cal. 842.

(d) See, in illustration of the general principle, Jones v. Lees, 1 H. & N. 180, and Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 N. Y. (6 Seld.) 241.

(e) Hilton v. Eckersley, 6 Ellis & B. 47. So held by Campbell, C. J., and Crompton, J.; Erle, J., dissenting.

1 Thus a contract not to practise law in a certain town is valid, Smaller v. Greene, 52 la. 241; or within six miles of one's residence, Linn v. Sigsbee, 67 Ill. 75. Where the object of an agreement is to parcel out the stevedoring business of a particular port amongst the parties to it, and so to prevent competition, at least amongst themselves, and also, it may be, to keep up the price to be paid for the work, it was held, that such agreement is not invalid if carried into effect by provisions reasonably necessary for the purpose, though the effect of them might be to create a partial restraint upon the power of the parties to exercise their trade. Collins v. Locke, 4 App. Cas. 674.

2 But in Michigan it was decided that a contract of sale of a publishing business, which covered substantially the territory of a State, containing a provision that the vendor should not again engage in the business within the State, is not an unreasonable restraint of trade. Beal v. Chase, 31 Mich. 490.

3 "Within a radius of ten miles of L." was construed to mean "within ten miles of the centre of the town of L." Cook v. Johnson, 47 Conn. 175. The systematically sending to houses of customers, the receiving of orders and delivery of goods within prescribed limits, within which one has covenanted not to engage in business, is a breach of the covenant, although done at a customer's request and although the business is engaged in outside of the limits; but occasionally selling to an old customer to oblige him' is not a breach. Sander v. Hoffman, 64 N. Y. 248. See also in the analogous topic of the sale of the "good will" of a business, Labouchere v. Dawson, L. R. 13 Eq. 322; Ginesi v. Cooper, 14 Ch. D. 596.