The importance of enabling the owner of a business to dispose of it and the consequent necessity of allowing him to secure to the purchaser the value of the business which is sold by engaging not to destroy the good will thereof by immediate competition, has led to the well-established rule that a restriction no wider than is necessary to protect the business sold and which does not tend to create a monopoly is valid,71 subject to the possible qualification, previously alluded to, that even though the business sold was unlimited in extent geographically, the restrictive promise must not be.72

Fed. 864; Myers v. Tuttle, 183 Fed. 235; Ranft v. Reimers, 200 111. 386, 65 N. E. 720, 60 L. R. A. 291; Brown v. Benzinger, 118 Md. 29,84 Atl. 79, Ann. Gas. 1914 B. 582; Foss v. Roby, 195 Mass. 292, 81 N. E. 199, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1200; Fairfield v. Lowry, 207 Mass. 352, 93 N. E. 598; Myers v. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215, 19 N. W. 961, 20 N. W. 545, 52 Am. Rep. 811; Althen v. Vreeland (N. J. Eq.), 36 Atl. 479; Snyder Pasteurized Milk Co., 80 N. J. Eq. 185, 83 Atl. 907; Von Bremen v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 L. R. A. (N, S.) 293; Wentzel v. Barbin, 189 Pa. 502, 42 Atl. 44; Zanturjian v. Boorna-zian, 25 R. 1.151, 55 Atl. 199. But see Cottrell v. Babcock Printing Press Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. 122, 6 Atl. 791; Williams v. Farrand, 88 Mich. 473,50 N. W. 446, 14 L. R. A. 161; Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. LaBelle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546, 52 N. W. 595,16 L. R. A. 453, 33 Am. St. Rep. 72.

67 Walker v. Mottram, 19 Ch. D. 355; Dawson v. Beeson, 22 Ch. D. 504; Griffiths v. Kirley, 189 Mass. 522, 70 N. E. 201; Von Bremen v. MacMonnies, 200 N. Y. 41, 93 N. E. 186, 32 595,16 L. R. A. 453,33 Am. St. Rep. 72. L. R. A. (N. S.) 293; Van Dyk v. P. V. Reilly Co., 130 N. Y. S. 755, 73 N. Y. Misc. 87.

68 Ranft v. Reimers, 200 111. 386, 65 N. E. 720, 60 L. R. A. 291; Newark Coal Co. v. Spangjer, 54 N. J. Eq. 354, 34 Atl. 932; White v. Trowbridge, 216 Pa. 11, 64 Atl. 862.

69 Drake v. Dodsworth, 4 Kane. 159; Myers v. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215, 19 N. W. 961, 20 N. W. 545, 52 Am. Rep. 811; Horner p. Lawrence, 86 N. Y. Misc. 95,149 N. Y. 8. 82. In Churton v. Douglas, Johns. (Eng.) 174, John Douglas, sold his interest in the firm of John Douglas & Co., and subsequently started a competing business under that name. An injunction was granted.

70 Knoedler v. Glaenzer, 55 Fed. 895, 5 C. C. A. 305, 14 U. S. App. 336, 20 L. R. A. 733; Myers v. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. 215, 19 N. W. 961, 20 N. W. 545, 52 Am. Rep. 811; Fish Bros. Wagon Co. v. LaBelle Wagon Works, 82 Wis. 546, 52 N. W. 595, 16 L. R. A. 453, 33 Am. St. Rep. 72.

71 Brampton v. Beddoes, 13 C. B. fN. S.) 538; Leather Cloth Go. v. Lorsont, L. R. 9 Eq. 345; Vernon v. Hallum, 34 Ch. D. 748; Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Co., [1804] A. C. 535; Goldaoll v. Goldman, [1914] 2 Ch. 603; Herbert Morris Co., Ltd., v. Saxelby, [1916], 1 App. Cas. 688, 701; Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v. Winsor, 20 Wall. 64, 22 L. Ed. 315; United States Chemical Co. v. Provident Chemical Co., 64 Fed. 946; National, etc., Stamping Co. v. Haberman, 120 Fed. 415; Walker v. Lawrence, 177 Fed. 363, 101 C. C. A. 417; Hall Mfg. Co. v. Western Steel & Iron Works, 227 Fed. 588,142 C. C. A. 220, L. R. A. 1916 C. 620; Moore, etc., Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206, 6 So. 41, 13 Am. St. Rep. 23; Knowles v. Jones, 182 Ala. 187, 62 So. 514; Webster v. Williams, 62 Ark. 101, 34 S. W. 537; Hampton v. Caldwell, 95 Ark. 387, 129 S. W. 816; Kimbro v;. Wells, 121 Ark. 45, 180 S. W. 342; Akers v. Rappe, 30 Cal. App. 290, 158 Pac. 129; Barrows v. McMurtry Mfg. Co., 54 Colo. 432, 131 Pac. 430; Cook v. Johnson, 47 Conn. 175, 36 Am. Rep. 64; Styles v. Lyon, 87 Conn. 23, 86 Atl. 564; Bullock v. Johnson, 110 Ga. 486,35 S. E. 703; Busk v. Wolf, 143 Ga. 18, 84 S. E. 63; Hursen v. Gavin, 162 111. 377, 44 N. E. 735; Alcock v. Al-cock, 267 111. 422, 108 N. E. 671; Telford v. Smith, 186 111. App. 631; Bowser v. Bliss, 7 Blackf. 344, 43 Am. Dec. 93; Duffy v. Shockey, 11 Ind. 70, 71 Am. Dec. 348; Eisel v. Hayes, 141 Ind. 41, 40 N. E. 119; Trentman v. Wahresburg, 30 Ind. App. 304, 65 N. E. 1057; Bennett v. Carmichael Produce Co., (Ind. App. 1917), 115 N. E. 793; Swigert v. Tilden, 121 la. 650, 97 N. W. 82, 63 L. R. A. 608, 100 Am. St. Rep. 374; Mills v. Cleveland,

87 Kan. 549, 125 Pac. 58; Sauser v. Kearney, 147 la. 335, 126 N. W. 322; Fox v. Barbee, 94 Kans. 212, 146 Pac. 364; Thorn v. Dinsmoor (Kans.), 178 Pac. 445; Western District Warehouse Co. v. Hobson, 96 Ky. 550, 29 S. W. 306; Linneman v. Allison, 142 Ky. 309, 134 S. W. 134; Breeding v. Tandy, 148 Ky. 345, 146 S. W. 742; F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Koll, 153 Ky. 446, 155 S. W. 1145; Kochenrath v. Christman, 180 Ky. 799, 203 S. W. 738; Moorman v. Parkerson, 131 La. 204, 59 So. 122, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 1150; Whitney v. Slayton, 40 Me. 224; Flaherty v. Iibby, 108 Me. 377, 81 Atl. 166; Guerand v. Dandelet, 32 Md. 561, 3 Am. Rep. 164; Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md. 63; Smith v. Brown, 164 Mass. 584, 42 N. E. 101; Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 105, 50 N. E. 509, 41 L. R. A. 189, 68 Am. St. Rep. 403; Beal v. Chase, 31 Mich. 490; Doty v. Martin, 32 Mich. 462; Buck v. Coward, 122 Mich. 530, 81 N. W. 328; Buckhout v. Witwer, 157 Mich. 406, 122 N. W. 184, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 506; Weickgenant v. Eccles, 173 Mich. 695, 140 N. W. 513; National Benefit Co. v. Union Hospital Co., 45 Minn. 272, 47 N. W. 806, 11 L. R. A. 437; Espenson v. Koepke, 93 Minn. 278, 101 N. W. 168; Southworth v. Davison, 106 Minn. 119, 118 N. W. 363, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769,16 Ann. Cas. 253; Holliston v. Ernston, 124 Minn. 49, 144 N. W. 415; Angelica Jacket Co. v. Angelica, 121 Mo. App. 226, 98 S. W. 805; Engles v. Morgenstern, 85 Neb. 51, 122 N. W. 688; Ammon v. Keill, 95 Neb. 695, 146 N. W. 1009, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 503; Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723, 46 L. R. A. 255, 78 Am. St. Rep. 612; Artistic Porcelain Co. v. Boch, 76 N. J. Eq. 533, 74 Atl. 680; Palumbo v.