If a sale of the business is made to one who previously was not a competitor, it is obvious that there is no diminution of competition by the sale, and the promise accompanying it. There is less competition than there would be if the purchaser had entered the field as a competitor without making the purchase in question, but nan constat that he would have done this. Where, however, one who is at the time a competitor purchases a business there is a real restriction of competition if the seller engages not to compete. Nevertheless, a restrictive promise in such cases is regarded as reasonable and is upheld.73

Piccioni (N. J. Eq.), 103 Atl. 815; Gross Kelly & Co. v. Bibo, 19 N. Mex. 495, 145 Pac. 480; Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 N. Y. 241, 61 Am. Dec. 746; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464; Leslie v. Lorillard, 110 N. Y. 519, 18 N. E. 363, 1 L. R. A. 456; Wood v. Whitehead Bros. Co., 165 N. Y. 545, 59 N. E. 357; Magnolia Metal Co. v. Price, 65 N. Y. App. D. 276, 72 N. Y. S.792; Broadbrooks v. Tolles, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 646, 99 N. Y. S. 996; Metropolitan Opera Co. v. Hammeretein, 162 N. Y. App. D. 691, 147 N. Y. S. 532; Kramer v. Old, 119 N. C. 1, 25 8. E. 813, 34 L. R. A. 389, 56 Am. St. Rep. 650; King v. Fountain, 126 N. C. 196, 35 8. E. 427; Anders v. Gardner, 151 N. Car. 604, 66 8. E. 665; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N. C. 43, 68 8. E. 898; Threlkeld v. Steward, 24 Okl. 403, 103 Pac. 630, 138 Am. St. 888; Feenaughty v. Beall (Oreg.), 178 Pac. 600; Harlrin-son's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 196, 21 Am. Rep. 9; Smith's Appeal, 113 Pa. 579, 590, 6 Atl. 251; Patterson v. Glassmire, 166 Pa. 230, 31 Atl. 40; Harbison-Walker, etc., Co. v. Stanton, 227 Pa. 55, 75 Atl. 988; Public Opinion Pub. Co. v. Ransom, 34 8. Dak. 381, 148 N. W. 838; Baird v. Smith, 128 Tenn. 410, 161 S. W. 492, L. R. A. 1917 A. 376; Erwin v. Hayden (Tex. Civ. App.),

43 S. W. 610; Nelson v. Brassington,

64 Wash. 180, 116 Pac. 629, Ann. Gas. 1913 A. 289; Washington Charcrete Co. v. Campbell, 72 Wash. 566, 131 Pac. 208, Ann. Cas. 1914 D. 630; Boggs v. Friend, 77 W. Va. 531, 87 8. E. 893; Kellogg v. Larkin, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 123, 56 Am. Dec. 164; Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336; Cussen v. O'Connor, 32 L. R. Ir. 330; Parker's Dye Works v. Smith, 20 Dom. L. R. 500; Mizon v. Pohoretsky, 38 Dom. L. R. 214; Kelly v. McLaughlin, 21 Manitoba, 789. See also United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., 166 U. 8. 290, 41 L. Ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540; United States v. Joint Traffic Assoc., 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. Ed. 259, 19 8. Ct. 25; Berghuis v. Schultz, 119 Minn. 87, 137 N. W. 201. But see California, Michigan, S. Dakota and N. Dakota statutes referred to supra, Sec.1639, n, 60; and infra, i 1643. Also Strobeck v. McWilliams (N. Dak.), 171 N. W. 865.

72 Supra, Sec. 1639.

71 Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns Co., [1894] A. C. 535; United States Chemical Co. v. Provident Chemical Co., 64 Fed. 946; Moore, etc., Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206, 6 So. 41; California Steam Navigation Co. v. Wright, 6 Cal. 258,

65 Am. Dec. 511; Beard v. Dennis, 6

Nor is the promise invalidated by the circumstance that no tangible property was transferred and the transaction amounts merely to the sale of good will accompanied by a promise not to engage further in a competing occupation.74

If, however, the restrictive promise is unduly harsh or wider than the necessities of the promisee require, it is invalid;75 and likewise if the effect of a sale or lease with restrictive covenants to a competitor is designed to give a monopoly, or a predominance approximating thereto.76

Ind. 200, 63 Am. Dec. 380; Hubbard v. Miller, 27 Mich. 15, 15 Am. Rep. 153; Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723, 46 L. R. A. 255, 78 Am. St. Rep. 612; Palumbo v. Kccioni (N. J. Eq.), 103 Atl. 815; Chappel v. Brockway, 21 Wend. 157; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464; Kellogg v. Larkin, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 123, 56 Am. Dec. 164. But see contra Gamewell Fire-Alarm Co. v. Crane, 160 Mass. 50, 35 N. E. 98, 22 L. R. A. 673, 39 Am. St. Rep. 458; Carroll v. Giles, 30 8. C. 412, 98. E. 422, 4 L. R. A. 154.

In Palumbo v. Ficcioni (N. J. Eq.), 103 Atl. 815, the plaintiff, then proprietor of a business, bought out a competitor's business taking a restrictive covenant, and for a time operated both establishments. Later he sold the establishment which he had purchased to a third person who did not object to the resumption of business by the defendant, the original seller. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to enjoin such resumption. See also Tuscaloosa Ice Co. v. Williams, 127 Ala. 110, 120, 28 So. 669, 50 L. R. A. 175, 85 Am. St. Rep. 125.

74 Wickens v. Evans, 3 Y. & J. 318; Rowe v. Toon (la.), 169 N. W. 38; National Benefit Co. v. Union Hospital Co., 45 Minn. 272, 47 N. W. 806, 11 L. R. A. 437; Leslie v. Lorillard, 110 N. Y. 519,18 N. E. 363,1 L. R. A. 456; Wood v. Whitehead Bros. Co., 165

N. Y. 545, 59 N. E. 357; Mapes v. Metcalf, 10 N. Dak. 601, 88 N. W. 713.

75 Tarr v. Stearman, 264 11I. 110, 105 N. E. 957; Consumers' Oil Co. v. Nunnemaker, 142 Ind. 560, 41 N. E. 1048, 51 Am. St. Rep. 193; Roberts v. Lemont, 73 Neb. 365, 102 N, W. 770; Fleckenstein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein, 76 N. J. L. 613, 71 Atl. 265, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 913; Marvel v. Jonah, 81 N. J. Eq. 369, 86 Atl. 968. See cases cited supra, n. 71.

76 Shawnee Compress Co.v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. Ed. 865, 28 Sup. Ct. 572; affirming Anderson v. Shawnee Compress Co., 17 Okla. 231, 87 Pac. 315, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 846; Stewart v. Stearns, etc., Lumber Co., 56 Fla. 570, 48 So. 19, 24 L. R. A. 649; Harding v. American Glucose Co., 182 111. 551, 55 N. E. 577, 64 L. R. A. 738, 74 Am. St. Rep. 189 (writ of error dismissed, 187 U. S. 651, 47 L. Ed. 349, 23 Sup. Ct. 841); American Strawboard Co. v. Peoria Strawboard Co., 65 111. App. 502. See also Clark v. Needham, 125 Mich. 84, 83 N. W. 1027, 51 L. R. A. 785, 84 Am. St. Rep. 559; Lufkin Rule Co. v. Fringeli, 57 Oh. St. 596, 49 N. E. 1030, 41 L. R. A. 185, 63 Am. St. Rep. 736. Cf. Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723, 46 L. R. A. 255, 78 Am. St. Rep. 612; Monongahela River Consolidated, etc., Co. v. Jutte, 210 Pa. 288, 59 Atl. 1088, 105 Am. St. Rep. 812. .

In certain corporations the value of the business is largely dependent on the good will of one or more officers or stockholders, and just as the corporation might on sale of its business contract to refrain from competition, so officers or stockholders either on selling their stock, or on the corporation selling its business, may make effectively a reasonable restrictive agreement not to compete with the corporation or with a purchaser of its business.77