"tying clauses" which make it a condition of the lease that the lessee shall use only materials and machinery of the lessor's manufacture have also been upheld.7 Sometimes the desired result is sought by an agreement to give a rebate, if at the end of a stipulated period a buyer has bought exclusively from a particular seller. Such a contract also has been sustained.8 And one who is not engaged in an occupation charged with a public duty may contract to sell goods or render services to a particular person for a lower price than will be charged to others;9 but if the exaction by a seller of an agreement in any form for exclusive dealing were part of a scheme to obtain a

148 Pac. 131; Walter A. Wood, etc., Co. v. Greenwood Hardware Co., 75 S. Car. 378, 55 S. . 973; Sullivan v. Rime, 35 S. Dak. 75, 150 N. W. 556; Merriman v. Cover, 104 Va. 428, 51 S. E. 817; Butterick Publishing Co. v. Rose, 141 Wis. 533,124 N.W. 647. In some of these cases the court laid stress on the agreement being limited in time and space. In Ripy v. Art Wall Paper Mills, supra, at p. 23, the Oklahoma court said: "An agreement of a retailer to buy a particular line of goods exclusively from a certain manufacturer thereof, for a limited period of time, and confined to a particular locality, in consideration of other covenants therein of mutual advantage to the parties, and when otherwise unobjectionable under the law, is not invalid because in restraint of trade." Citing Olmstead v. Distilling, etc., Co. (C. C), 77 Fed. 205; Brown v. Rounsavell, 78 111. 589. Trentman v. Wahrenburg, 30 Ind. App; 304, 05 N. E. 1057; Kronschnabei-Smith Co. v. Kronschnabel, 87 Minn. 230, 91 N. W. 892; Arnold Bros. v. Kreuteer, 67 Iowa, 214, 25 N. W. 138; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 60 Am. Rep. 464, 13 N. E. 419; Live Stock Asso. v. Levy, 54 N. Y. S. 32; Threlkeld v. Steward, 24 Okla. 403, 103 Pac. 630, 138 Am. St. Rep. 888. See also United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. S. 32, 62

L. Ed. 968, 38 Sup. Ct. 473. Local statutes, however, may limit the right to make such contracts. See Pope-Turnbo v. Bedford, 147 Mo. App. 692, 127 S. W. 426.

7 United Shoe Machinery v. Brunet, [1909] A. C. 330; United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. 8. 32, 38 8. Ct. 473, 62 L. Ed. 968. In the latter case the question involved was the liability of the corporation to prosecution under the Sherman Act; but in view of the construction given to the words "restraint of trade" in that Act (see infra, Sec. 1658), the decision in effect upholds the validity at Common Law of the clauses in question. Three of the seven justices taking part in the decision dissented.

8 See Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, [1892] A. C. 25 (holding merely that a system of contracts of the sort was not a tort against a commercial rival); Corn Products Ref. Co. v. Oriental Candy Co., 168 111. App. 585, 590; National Distilling Co. v. Cream City Importing Co., 86 Wis. 352, 56 N. W. 864, 39 Am. St. Rep. 902; Queen v. American Tobacco Co., 3 La Revue de Jurisprudence, 453.

9 Edgar Lumber Co. v. Cornie Stave Co., 95 Ark. 449, 130 S. W. 452. Even a common carrier was held justified in contracting to give lower rates to all who would do business with it exclusively - the privilege offered being monopoly, the contract seems opposed to the principle now apparently generally recognized in the United States, denying validity to contracts having this purpose.10 The nature of a business, moreover, may be such as to make any agreement for exclusive dealing obviously opposed to public policy; 11 and by the Clayton Act it is made so by statute if the seller was engaged in interstate commerce, and the effect is substantially to lessen competition.12 In some States also agreements for exclusive dealing may fall under the prohibition of local statutes.13 open to all. Lough v. Outer-bridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712.

10 In Illinois a by-law of a press association binding members not to purchase news from any antagonistic association was held void. Inter-Ocean Pub. Co. v. Associated Press, 184 111. 438, 56 N. E. 822, 48 L. R A. 568, 75 Am. St. Rep. 184. See also Minnesota Tribune Co. v. Associated Press, 83 Fed. 350,357,27 C. C. A. 542.

In Missouri and New York, however, such a by-law has been upheld. Star Publishing Co. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S. W. 91, 61 L. R. A. 151; Matthews v. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. 333, 32 N. E. 961, 32 Am. St. Rep. 741; Bleistein v. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. 662, 32 N. E. 961; Dunlop's Cable News Co. v. Stone, 15 N. Y. S. 2, 27 Abbott's New Cases, 28.

11 In Central N. Y. Teleph. & Teleg. Co, v. Averfll, 199 N. Y. 128, 92 N. E. 206, 32 L. R A. (N. S.) 494, 139 Am. St. Rep. 878, a contract giving a telephone company the exclusive right to furnish connections with a hotel for a term of years, although only in partial restraint of trade, was held to be against public policy and void.

12 Sec. 3. " That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any Territory there of or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." 38 U. S. Stat. 730, 731. In Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane Houston Co., 259 Fed. 792 (C. C. A.) a contract for the agency to sell patterns for two years, during which the agent engaged not to sell patterns of other make was held invalid within the Clayton Act; the court holding that the passage of that law after similar restrictions had been held not obnoxious to the common law or the Sherman Act created an inference that Congress intended to change the law. Cf. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U. S. 32, 62 L. Ed. 968, 38 Sup. Ct. 473. 13 See Merchants' Legal Stamp Co.

Though an agreement to give exclusive rights may be valid, an agreement to boycott those who interfere with such rights is illegal.14