1 In order that a sum named in an agreement should be treated as liquidated damages it must be reasonable in amount, so that it might fairly have been intended as compensation. Scofield v. Tompkins, 95 III 190; Jaqua v. Headington, 114 Ind. 309; Maxwell v. Allen, 78 Me. 32; Pennypacker v. Jones, 106 Pa. 237; Schrirapf v. Tenn. Mfg. Co., 86 Tenn. 219. One of the most frequent occasions for the stipulation of liquidated damages is in building contracts where a sum is named as damages for each day's delay. Such an agreement, if reasonable in amount, is valid, and will be treated as damages, not as a penalty. Jones v. St. John's College, L R. 6 Q. B. 115; Law v. Redditch, (1892) 1 Q B 127; Hall v. Crowley, 5 Allen, 304; Welch v. McDonald, 85 Va. 500: Scott v. Deut, 38 U. C. Q. B. 30. But see contra, Patent Brick Co. v. Moore, 75 Cal. 205; Wilcus v. Kling, 87 111. 107; Brennan v. Clark, 29 Neb. 385. See Hahn v. Horstman, 12 Bush, 249. If the sum named is manifestly unreasonable, it will not be enforced. Clement v. Schuylkill, etc R. R. Co. 132 Pa. 445. Liquidated damages may be agreed upon for demurrage in charter-parties, Lockhart v. Falk, L. R. 10 Ex. 135; or for delay in furnishing goods according to contract. Bergheim v. Blaenavon Ac. Co. L. R. 10 Q B. 319. An agreement for liquidated damages for breach of a valid covenant not to carry on business in a particular locality will also generally be enforced. National Provincial Bank v. Marshall, 40 Ch. D. 112; Newman v. Wolfson, 69 Ga. 764; Johnson v. Gwinn, 100 Ind. 466; Holbrook v. Tobey, 66 Me. 416; Cashing v. Drew, 97 Mass 445; (see also Smith v. Bergengreen, 153 Mass. 236) Hoagland v. Segur, 38 N. J. L 230; Barry v. Harris, 49 Vt 392. A note for a larger sum which maybe discharged by payment of a smaller sum at an earlier day is enforceable for the full amount Waggoner v. Cox, 40 Ohio St 539. So a note providing for increased interest after maturity. Reeves v. Stipp, 91 111. 609. A deposit made to secure performance, is held forfeited as damages if reasonable in amount Wallis v. Smith, 21 Ch. D. 243; Mathews v. Sharp, 99 Pa 560. But in Chaude v. Shepard, 122 N. Y. 397, this was denied unless the deposit was paid in part performance of the contract See also Dullaghan v. Fitch, 42 Wis. 679; Savannah, etc. R. R. Co. v. Callahan, 56 Ga 331. A stipulation providing for liquidated damages does not deprive a party of a right to apply to a court of equity for an injunction instead of suing for damages, if the case is in other respects such as to entitle him to an injunction. National Provincial Bank v. Marshall, 40 Ch. D. 112: Ropes v. Upton, 125 Mass. 258: Crane v. Peer, 43 N.J. Eq. 553.