A fundamental objection of public policy to contracts in unreasonable restraint of trade is their tendency to produce monopoly and enhanced prices; and any contract which is part of a scheme to produce an obnoxious monopoly will be unenforceable. Thus, though a purchase of a business may be accompanied by a promise of the seller not thereafter to compete, if the purchaser made such contracts with a large number of competitors so that, if all the transaction were carried out, a monopoly would be effected, each one of them though on its face apparently valid, would be rendered unenforceable by the other circumstances of the case.77 It may even be supposed that the first purchase and contract was made without evil intent on the part of the purchaser, but thereafter with a view of to remove from or take any other dwelling-house or residence.' If these clauses are indivisible and the deed has to be construed as one entire contract I can come to no other conclusion than that this contract did so unduly fetter and restrict the disposal of the mortgagor's labour, and so unduly restrict him in his mode of living and in choosing the mode of living best adapted for the purpose he had in view, as to be against public policy. ...
"The illegal clauses are so many and so mixed up with the legal clauses that it is impossible to separate them or to apply to them the divisibility doctrine."
An agreement by a daughter to cancel indebtedness due from her mother on condition that the latter should not sell or mortgage her property or incur any indebtedness in excess of $1000, is not an unlawful restraint. Robinson v. Thurston, 24& Fed. 420, 160 C. C. A. 430.
74 Pope Mfg. Co. v;. Gdrmully, 144 U. S. 224, 36 L. Ed. 414, 12 Sup. Ct. 632; Buffalo Specialty Co. v. Gougar, 26 Colo. App. 523, 144 Pac. 326.
75Upton v. Henderson, 106 L. T. 839; Wallace v. McPherson, 138 Term. 458, 197 S. W. 665, L. R. A. 1918 A. 1148.
76In re Baker, 29 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 486.
77 Finck v. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. 244, 86 S. W. 213, 106 Am. St. Rep. 452. See also Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 53 L. Ed. 486, 29 Sup. Ct. 280; G. W. McNear, Inc., v. American & British Mfg. Co. (R. I.), 107 Atl. 242.
obtaining a monopoly he made a number of similar contracts with other competitors. Presumably not only the later contracts, but the first one also would be unenforceable.78 It is chiefly because a system of contracts with all dealers not to resell a manufactured article below a fixed price creates a monopoly that a single contract forming part of such a system is invalid.79