If a sharply defined line separated a restraint which is excessive territorially from such restraint as is permissible, there seems no reason why effect should not be given to a restrictive promise indivisible in terms, to the extent that it is lawful.37 If it be said that the attempt to impose an excessive restraint invalidates the whole promise, a similar attempt should invalidate a whole contract, though the promises are in terms divisible. Questions involving legality of contracts

29 Parsons v. Cotterill, 66 L. T. 839; Rogers v. Maddocks [1802] 3 Ch. 346; Maxim v. Nordenfelt, etc., Go. v. Nor-denfelt, [1893] 1 Ch. 630 (see also same case, [1894] A. G. 535); Robinson v. Heuer, [1898] 1 Ch. 451; Haynes v. Doman, [1899] 2 Ch. 13, 24; Bromley v;. Smith, [1909] 2 K. B. 235.

30 Nicholls v. Stretton, 10 Q. B. 346; Dubowski v. Goldstein, [1896] 1 Q. B. 478.

31 Perls v. Saalfeld [1892] 2 Ch. 149; Rogers v. Maddocks, [1892] 3 Ch. 346; Hooper v. Willis, 21 T. L. Rep. 691, 22 T. L. R. 451; Leng v. Andrews, [1909] 1 Ch. 763; Roberts v. Lemont, 73 Neb. 366,102 N. W. 770; Althen v. Vreeland (N. J.) 36 Ati. 479. But see Fox v. Barbee, 94 Kan. 212,146 Pac. 364.

32 Consumers' Oil Go. v. Nunne-maker, 142 Ind. 560, 41 N. E. 1048, 51 Am. St. Rep. 193.

33 Pelts v. Eichele, 62 Mo. 171. See also Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480; Smith's Appeal, 113 Pa. 579,6 Atl. 251.

34 Baker v. Hedgecock, 39 Ch. D. 520. See also Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Heath, 29 T. L. R. 308.

35 Bromley v. Smith, [1009] 2 K. B.-235.

36 Price v. Green, 16 M. & W. 346.

37 This is the case under the California Statute, which makes a restrictive promise accompanying the sale of good will lawful to the extent of the county or city where the business is carried on. Ragadale v. Nagle, 106 Gal. 332, 39 Pac. 628.

« should not depend on form. Public policy surely is not concerned to distinguish differences of wording in agreements of identical meaning. Covenants, in terms, unlimited as to time, have sometimes been divided in the way suggested,38 but a covenant unlimited in time and space to withdraw from a business "so far as the law allows" has been held bad for unreasonableness if the quoted words are surplusage and-for uncertainty if they are not.39 On the other hand, a covenant restricting the promisor from entering a business "in competition" with a specified company was held valid for the territory within which the company was engaged in business, proof being allowed of what this territory was.40 The fact that a covenant is wholly unenforceable will not prevent one who has purchased a business from acquiring and enforcing the rights which have previously 41 been shown to be incident to the sale of good will, apart from any special covenant.42