In England undoubtedly the same result has been reached in regard to covenants unrestricted in space. There it is held that unlimited space does not necessarily involve the invalidity of a promise; 57 though if the restriction whatever it be is greater than is needed for the protection of the promisee, the promise is invalid.58 The decisions in the United States also in recent years have leaned towards making the reasonableness of the transaction the test, rather than any consideration whether the promise in question was unlimited in regard to space.59 It is not everywhere clear, however, that the mere

196, 205, 101 Atl. 308, 311; French v. Parker, 16 R. I. 219, 14 Atl. 870, 27 Am. St. Rep. 733; Butler v. Burleson, 16 Vt. 176; Mizon v. Pohoreteky, 38 Dom. L. R. 214. But see Mandeville v. Hannan, 42 N. J. Eq. 185, 103, 7 Atl. 37.

55 Rackemann v. Riverbank Imp. Co., 167 Mass. 1, 44 N. E. 990, 57 Am. St. Rep. 427 (contract by seller of land not to sell adjoining land below a certain price).

56 Saddlery, etc., Co. v. Hillsborough Mills, 68 N. H. 216,44 Atl. 300,73 Am. St. Rep. 569; Hauser v. Harding, 126 N. C. 295, 35 S. E. 586. See also Wooten v. Harris, 153 N. C. 43, 68 S. E. 898; and infra, Sec. 1659.

57 Rousillon v. Rousillon, 14 Ch. Div. 351; Badische Anilin Ac. Fabrik v. Schott, [1892] 3 Ch. 447; Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Co., [1894] A. C. 535; Robinson v. Heuer, [1898] 2 Ch. 451.

58 Underwood & Son, Ltd., v. Barker, [1899] 1 Ch. 300.

59 This is indicated by the following cases, though the contracts involved in most of them were not wholly unlimited in space. Fowle v. Park, 131 U. S.

88, 33 L. Ed. 67, 9 Sup. Ct. 658; Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 116 Fed. 217, affd. 130 Fed. 533, 65 C. C. A. 79; National Enameling, etc., Co. v. Haberman, 120 Fed. 415; S. Jarvis Adams Co. v. Knapp, 121 Fed. 34, 58 C. C. A. 1; Thibodeau v. Hildreth, 124 Fed. 892, 60 C. C. A. 78, 63 L. R. A. 480; Hall Mfg. Co. v. Western Steel & Iron Works, 227 Fed. 588,142 C. C. A. 220, L. R. A. 1916 C. 620 (unlimited either in space or time); Moore, etc., Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206, 6 So. 41; Gregory v. Spieker, 110 Cal. 150, 42 Fac. 576, 52 Am. St. Rep. 70; Milaneseo v. Cal-vanese, 92 Conn. 641, 103 Atl. 841; Swigert v. Tilden, 121 Iowa, 650, 97 N. W. 82, 63 L. R. A. 608,100 Am. St. Rep. 374; Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 50 N. E. 509, 41 L. R. A. 189, 68 Am. St. 403; Marshall Engine Co. v. New Marshall Engine Co., 203 Mass. 410, 89 N. E. 548; Beal v. Chase, 31 Mich. 490; Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N. W. 1102, 6 L. R. A. 457; Western Woodenware Assoc, v. Starkey, 84 Mich. 76,47 N. W. 604,1.1L. R. A. 503, 22 Am. St. Rep. 686; Eronschnabellack of restriction in space will not as matter of law render a promise invalid without regard to the necessity of so extensive a promise. Nor is it clear whether a promise is to be considered unrestricted in space if it relates to the State or only if it relates to the whole United States,60

Smith Co. v. Kronschnabel, 87 Minn. 230, 91 N. W. 892; Southworth v. Davison, 106 Minn. 119, 118 N. W. 363, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769, 16 Ann. Gas. 253; Newell v. Meyendorff, 9 Mont. 254, 23 Pac. 333, 8 L. R. A. 440. 18 Am. St. Rep. 738; Bancroft v. Union Embossing Co., 72 N. H. 402, 57 Atl. 97, 64 L. R. A. 298; Sternberg v. O'Brien, 48 N. J. Eq. 370, 22 Atl. 348; Ellerman v. Chicago June. Ry., etc., Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 23 Atl. 287; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464; Leslie v. Lorrillard, 110 N. Y. 519, 18 N. E. 363; Good v. Daland, 121 N. Y. 1, 24 N. E. 15; Tode v. Gross, 127 N. Y. 480, 28 N. E. 469, 24 Am. St. Rep. 475; Magnolia Metal Co. v. Price, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 276, 72 N. Y. S. 792; Shute v. Heath, 131 N. C. 281, 42 S. E. 704; Herreehoff v. Boutineau, 17 R. I. 3, 19 Atl. 712, 8 L. R. A. 469, 33 Am. St. Rep. 850.

60 In Massachusetts it was held that the single State is the unit, and a promise relating to the whole of Massachusetts was necessarily invalid. Bishop v. Palmer, 146 Mass. 469, 16 N. E. 299, 4 Am. St. Rep. 339; Hand-forth v. Jackson, 150 Mass. 149, 22 N. E. 634. See also Western Wooden-ware Assoc, v. Starkey, 84 Mich. 76, 47 N. W. 604, 11 L. R. A. 503, 22 Am. St. Rep. 686; Lawrence v. Kidder, 10 Barb. 641. The earlier Massachusetts cases have, however, been reversed on this point by later decisions, and it is now held that an unrestricted covenant at least when coupled with the sale of a business may be valid if necessary to secure to the purchaser the subject-matter of his purchase. Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 50 N. E. 509, 41 L. R. A. 189, 68 Am. St. Rep. 403; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Kimball, 193 Mass. 351, 358, 79 N. E. 790; Marshall Engine Co. v. New Marshall Engine Co., 203 Mass. 410, 424, 89 N. E. 548. In Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473,13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464, it was held that a promise was not unlimited in space unless it included the whole of the United States, and the exception from the terms of the promise of the State of Nevada and the territory of Montana was held to preclude any objection on the score of unlimited space. See also Watertown Thermometer Co. v. Pool, 51 Hun, 157, 4 N. Y. S. 861; Brett v. Ebel, 29 N. Y. App. D. 256, 51 N. Y. S. 573. In Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723, 46 L. R. A. 255, 78 Am. St. Rep. 612, the court approved the decision of the preceding case that the boundaries of the United States only need be considered, but left undecided the question whether the exception of Nevada and Arizona precluded objection on the score of unlimited space in view of proof which was offered that it was impossible to carry on the pottery business which was in question in either of those localities. Under the California Civ. Code, JSec. 167&-1675, all contracts in restraint of trade are invalid except that, on the sale of good will, the seller may contract not to engage in a similar business within a specified county, city or part thereof, and so long as the buyer or one deriving title to the good will from him carries on a like business therein; and a