A contract to sell within a certain territory goods of a specified kind to, or through the agency of, one person only, generally is valid;1 but it is otherwise if such a contract is part of a scheme whereby it is sought to establish a monopoly;2 or if

(N. S.) 1104; Central Shade Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353, 9 N. E. 620; Wheeler Stenzel Co. v. American W. G. Co., 202 Mass. 471, 476, 80 N. E. 28, L. R. A. 1015 F. 1076; First Nat. Bank v. Missouri Ac. Co., 160 Mo. App. 374, 152 S. W. 378; New York T. R. Co. v. Brown, 61 N. J. L. 536, 43 Atl. 100. The Wisconsin court added: "We do not wish to be understood as approving all that is said in these cases."

99 Pulp Wood Co. v. Green Bay Paper etc. Co., 157 Wis. 604, 623, 147 N. W. 1058, cert, denied, 240 U. S. 610, 30 S. Ct. 201. See further s. c. 168 Wis. 400, 170 N. W. 230.

1 Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, [1802] A. C. 25, 43, 50; Attorney General v. Adelaide S. S. Co., [1013] A. C. 781, 812; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Union Button Hole, etc., Co., Holmes, 253; Baran v. Goodyear Tire Ac. Co., 256 Fed. 571; Keith v. Hersch-berg Optical Co., 48 Ark. 138, 2 S. W. 777; Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. Rep. 102; Whitson v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 18 App. D. C. 565; Lanyon v. Garden City Sand Co., 223 111. 616, 70 N. E. 313, 0 L. R. A. (N. S.) 446; Superior Coal Co. v. Darlington Lumber Co., 236 111. 83, 86 N. E. 180, 127 Am. St. Rep. 275; Over v. Byram Foundry Co., 37 Ind. App. 452, 77 N. E. 302; Roller v. Ott, 14 Kans. 600; Peck-Williamson Heating, etc., Co. v. Miller (Ky.), 118 S. W. 376; Mitchell-Taylor Tie Co. v;.

Whiteker, 158 Ky. 651, 166 S. W. 103; Central Shade Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353, 0 N. E. 620; New York Bank Note Co. v. Kidder Press Mfg. Co., 102 Mass. 301, 78 N. E. 463; State v. St. Paul Gaslight Co., 02 Minn. 467, 100 N. W. 216; Houck v. Wright, 77 Miss. 476, 27 So. 616; Standard Fireproofing Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Fireproofing Co., 177 Mo. 550, 76 S. W. 1008; Newell v. Meyendorff, 0 Mont. 254, 23 Pac. 333, 8 L. R. A. 440, 18 Am. St. Rep. 738; Woods v. Hart, 50 Neb. 407, 70 N. W. 53; New York Trap Rock Co. v. Brown, 61 N. J. L. 536, 43 Atl. 100; New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving, etc., Co., 180 N. Y. 280, 73 N. E. 48; Stemmerman v. Kelly, 150 N. Y. App. Div. 735, 135 N. Y. S. 827; Walter A. Wood, etc., Co. v. Greenwood Hardware Co., 75 S. C. 378» 55 S. E. 073, 0 L. R. A. (N. S.) 501; Watkins v. Morley, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. (Will-son), Sec.723; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Asso. v. Houck (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 602; Vandeweghe v. American Brewing Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 526; Clark v. Crosby, 37 Vt. 188; Thurmond v. Paragon Colliery Co. (W. Va.), 05 S. E. 816. See also Graham v. J. I. Case Ac. Co., 10 Manitoba, 27; Louisville Board u. Johnson, 133 Ky. 707, 110 8. W. 153, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153.

2 Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. Rep. 102; Detroit Salt Co. v. National Salt freedom of dealing with a public service corporation is impaired3 it will not be enforced;4 and local anti-trust statutes have in some jurisdictions limited the right to make such contracts.5 An agreement to buy from or deal in the goods of one person has been almost universally held valid.6 In leases of machinery

Co., 134 Mich. 103, 96 N. W. 1; State v. St. Paul Gaslight Co., 92 Minn. 467, 470, 100 N. W. 216; Burns v. Wray Farmers' Grain Co. (Colo.), 176 Pac. 487. See also Finck v. Schneider Granite Co, 187 Mo. 244, 86 S. W. 213, 106 Am. St. 452. But see Central Shade Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353, 9 N. E. 629.

3 Coombs v. Burk (Cal. App., 1919), 180 Pac. 59. Cf. State v. St. Paul Gaslight Co., 92 Minn. 467, 100 N. W. 216.

4 In Rosenthal v. Light, 173 N. Y. 8.743, a contract to organize a corporation and to have such corporation execute an agreement whereby it would become a selling agency, bound to buy goods and to sell them at a price dictated by the seller was held invalid because the directors of the corporation would be deprived of the free exercise of their judgment.

5 See Finck v. Schneider Granite Cq., 187 Mo. 244, 86 S. W. 213, 106 Am. St. 452; S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Hertzberg (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. W. 355. And it seems that where the price at which the goods shall be sold is fixed by the seller, Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. Burkey, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 54 8. W. 804, or where not only an exclusive right is given to dispose of a manufacturer's goods, but the person to whom such right is given agrees not to deal in competing goods, the contract is forbidden by the Texas antitrust law. Texas Brewing Co. v. Templeman, 90 Tex. 277, 38 S. W. 27; Fuqua v. Pabst Brewing Co., 90 Tex. 298, 38 S. W. 29, 35 L. R. A. 241; Simmons v. Terry (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1103. But see Norton v. W. H.

Thomas & Sons Co., 99 Tex. 578, 91 S. W. 780. In Merchants'Legal Stamp Co. v. Murphy, 220 Mass. 281, 107 N. E. 968, L. R. A. 1915 D. 520, trading stamps and books were held "articles" within the Mass. St. 1908, c. 454, Sec. 1, prohibiting monopoly in production or sale of any article or commodity, and the contract of a trading stamp company for the sale of its trading stamps to a dealer was held monopolistic in tendency and void. Cf. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Fenster, 219 Fed. 755.

6 Catt v. Tourle, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 654; Altman v. Royal Aquarium Soc, 3 Ch. D. 228; Hanbury v. Cundy, 58 L. T. 155; Metropolitan Elec. Supply Co. v. Ginder, [1901] 2 Ch. 799; Wei-boldt v. Standard Fashion Co., 80 111. App. 67; Heimbuecher v. Goff, 119 111. App. 373; Ferris v. American Brewing Co., 155 Ind. 539, 58 N. E. 701, 52 L. R. A. 305; Trentman v. Wahrenburg, 30 Ind. App. 304, 65 N. E. 1057; Healy v. Southern, etc., Mfg. Co., 125 La. 1038, 52 So. 150; Butterick Pub. Co. v. Fisher, 203 Mass. 122, 89 N. E. 189, 133 Am. St: Rep. 283; Peerless Pattern Co. v. Gauntlett Dry Goods Co., 171 Mich. 158,136 N. W. 1113, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 843; Fleming v. Mulloy, 143 Mo. App. 309, 127 S. W. 105; Newell v. Meyendorff, 9 Mont. 254, 23 Pac. 333, 18 Am. St. Rep. 738; Feigenspan v. Nizolek, 71 N. J. Eq. 382, 65 Atl. 703, affd. 72 N. J. Eq. 949, 68 Atl. 1116; Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712; Ripy v. Art Wall Paper Milk, 41 Okla. 20, 136 Pac. 1080, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 33; Home Pattern Co. v. Mascho (Okla.),