The contract of a partner not to compete with the partnership either directly or indirectly is not opposed to public policy; 94 but such an agreement must be ancillary to the contract sales of good will, the seller may agree not to carry on a similar business within a county or city for the period during which the promisee, or one who derives title from him continues the business for the benefit of which the restriction is imposed. See City Carpet, etc., Works v. Jones, 102 Cal. 506, 36 Pac. 841; Ragsdale v. Nagle, 106 Cal. 332, 39 Pac. 628; Getz v. Federal Salt Co., 147 Cal. 115, 81 Pac. 416, 109 Am. St. Rep. 114; Akers v. Rappe, 30 Cal. App. 290, 158 Pac. 129; Hulen v. Earel, 13 Okla. 246, 73 Pac. 927; Public Opinion Pub. Co. v. Ransom, 34 S. Dak. 381, 148 N. W. 838, Ann. Cas. 1917 A. 1010. In the following cases restrictive promises of employees were held invalid. Dow-den v. Pook, [1904] 1 K. B. 45; Leng v. Andrews, [1909] 1 Ch. 763; Mason v. Provident, etc., Co., [1913] A. C. 724; Herbert Morris, Ltd., v. Saxelby, [1916] 1 A. C. 688; Tarr v;. Stearman, 264 111. 110, 105 N. E. 957; Mandeville v. Harman, 42 N. J. Eq. 185, 7 Atl. 37; Taylor Iron & Steel Co. p. Nichols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 Atl. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. Rep. 753; Oppenheimer v. Hirsch, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 232, 38 N. Y. S. 311; Tolman v. Mulcahy, 119 N. Y. App. Div. 42, 103 N. Y. S. 936; Keeler v;. Taylor, 53 Pa. 467, 91 Am. Dec. 221; Carroll v.

Giles, 30 S. C. 412, 9 S. E. 422, 4 L. R. A. 154.

91 Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Ref. Co., 116 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A. 484, 58 L. R. A. 915; S. Jarvis Adams Co. v. Knapp, 121 Fed. 34, 58 C. C. A. 1; Knapp v. 8. Jarvis Adams Co., 135 Fed. 1006, 70 C. C. A. 536; O. & W. Thum Co. v. Tlocaynski, 114 Mich. 149, 72 N. W. 140, 38 L. R. A. 200, 68 Am. St. Hep. 469; Sanitas Nut Food Co. v. Cemer, 134 Mich. 370, 96 N. W. 454; Eastman Co. v. Reichenbach, 47 N. Y. S. 435, 20 N. Y. S. 110; National Gum & Mica Co. v. Braendly, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 219, 51 N. Y, S. 93; G. F. Harvey Co. v. National Drug Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 103, 77 N. Y. S. 674; Fralich v. Despar, 165 Pa. 24, 30 Atl. 521.

92Badische etc. Fabrik v. Schott, [1892] 3 Ch. 447; Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Nichols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 Atl. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. 753.

93 Wege v. Safe Cabinet Co., 249 Fed. 696, 161 C. C. A. 606. As the court points out (p. 704) if the promise were limited to patents applied for during the term of employment, "the inventor might through knowledge obtained in his employment evade the contract later and render it valueless."

94 Tallis v. Tallis, 1 E. & B. 391; Dayer-Smith v. Hadsley, 108 L. T. (N.

of partnership or to a contract by which a partner disposes of his interest. After a partner has withdrawn without having made any restrictive engagement, a subsequent agreement for new consideration to refrain from competition is invalid.95 Moreover, the restriction must be reasonable in its limits, like a similar promise by an employee.96

When two or more persons, previously engaged in the same business enter into a partnership or joint adventure, the legality of their arrangement depends upon its purpose and effect, Certainly there is no sweeping denial of any right to enter into such agreements. It is only when the purpose or effect is substantially to limit competition or increase prices that the inhibition of the law becomes applicable.97 Also "there is nothing in itself unlawful in two or more persons appointing a common agent to purchase a commodity which they require, and in giving such agent the exclusive right to do the buying.98

S.) 897; Prame v. Ferrell, 166 Fed. 702, 92 C. C. A. 374; Callahan v. Donnolly, 45 Cal. 162, 13 Am. Rep. 172; Mila-naseo v. Calvanese, 92 Conn. 641, 103 Atl. 841; Hursen v. Gavin, 59 111. App. 66, affd. 162 111. 377, 44 N. E. 735; O'Neal v. Hines, 145 Ind. 32, 43 N. E. 946; Western District Warehouse Co. v. Hobeon, 96 Ky. 550, 29 8. W. 308; Moorman v. Parkerson, 127 La. 835, 54 So. 47; Angier v. Webber, 14 Allen (Mass.), 211,92 Am. Dec. 748; Boutelle v. Smith, 116 Mass. Ill; Ropes v. Upton, 125 Mass. 258; Marvel v. Jonah, 83 N. J. Eq. 295, 90 Atl. 1004, L. R. A. 1915 B. 206, Ann. Cas. 1916, C. 185; Curtis v. Gokey, 68 N. Y. 300; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N. C. 43, 68 S. E. 898; Siegel v. Marcus, 18 N. Dak. 214, 119 N. W. 358 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769; Lange v. Werk, 2 Oh. St. 519; Thomas v. Miles, 3 Oh. St. 274; Feenaughty v. Beall (Oreg.), 178 Pac. 600; Schlag v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 208 S. W. 369.

96 Cleaver v. Lenhart, 182 Pa. 285, 37 Atl. 811; Prescott v. Bidwell, 18 So. Dak. 64,99 N. W. 93, and see supra, Sec. 1630. In Milaneseo v. Calvanese,

92 Conn. 641, 103 Atl. 841, the cove- nant was upheld, though the parties seem never to have been actually partners, but to have separated after a vain attempt to agree on a partnership.

98 See cases cited supra, n. 94. Also California, Oklahoma and S. Dakota statutes referred to supra, Sec. 1639, n. 60.

97 See cases cited infra, Sec. 1648.

98 Pulp Wood Co. t;. Green Bay Paper Ac. Co., 157 Wis. 604, 623, 147 N. W. 1058, cert, denied, 249 U. S. 610, 39 S. Ct. 291, citing: Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 613, 614, 19 S. Ct. 50, 43 L. Ed. 300; Connolly v. Union S. P. Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 S. Ct. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679 (read in connection with additional facts stated in dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes in Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 29 S. Ct. 280, 53 L. Ed. 486); Arkansas B. Co. v. Dunn & Powell, 173 Fed. 899, 97 C. C. A. 454, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 464; Burley T. Soc. v. Gillaspy, 51 Ind. App. 583, 100 N. E. 89; Reeves v. Decorah etc. Soc., 160 Iowa, 194, 140 N. W. 844, 44 L. R. A.

"Such an arrangement becomes unlawful when it injuriously affects the public, or, in other words, when it unduly restricts competition or restrains trade." 99