Though an agreement forming an integral part of a plan to restrain trade unreasonably is unenforceable, the parties are not thereby deprived of ordinary civil rights, therefore they may enforce contracts not related to the unlawful restraint, even between themselves,43 and still more clearly as against third persons.44 Ownership of property derived under a contract invalid because in restraint of trade, will be protected even against the person from whom it was derived.45 Therefore, a trust or corporation formed in violation of the common law or of a statute prohibiting combinations in restraint of trade, may recover the price of goods sold by it,46 unless the sale formed part of the plan to restrict trade,47 or unless, as is the case in a few States, a local statute prohibits recovery.48 Similarly, infringement of a copyright,49 or patent,50 will be enjoined though the complainant is a party to an illegal agreement or combination in restraint of trade. Indeed it may be

38 In Meyers v. Merillion, 118 OaL 352,50 Pac. 662, a time limit which the court held unreasonable was enforced for the length of time during which the promisee remained in business not exceeding the limit fixed by the contract. See also Baines v. Geary, 35 Ch. D. 154; Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. Winsor, 20 Wall. 64, 22 L. Ed. 315; Harris v. Theus, 149 Ala. 133, 43 So. 131, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 204,123 Am. St. Rep. 17; Gregory v. Spieker, 110 Cal. 150, 42 Pac. 576, 52 Am. St. Rep. '70.

39 Davies v. Davies, 36 Ch. D. 350.

40 Cropper v. Davis, 243 Fed. 310, 156 C. C. A. 00. The court said (p. 313): "The contract provides that, if the defendant is released from his agreement to devote five years to the business of the League under its instruction, to enter another line of business, it must be with an individual firm, or company 'neither of which uses the plan, forms, or plan and forms, used by the National Rating League, in competition therewith.' It being possible for the court to ascertain by evidence in what territory the plaintiff did business, and whether another business of the same type would be in competition with the plaintiff, the contract was clearly limited to the territory thus described, and defendant was precluded from engaging in the like business as the plaintiff as clearly as though it had done so by geographical description. There is therefore no basis in fact for " the contention that the undertaking was too broad or too indefinite. See also Fox v. Barbee, 04 Kan. 212, 146 Pae. 364.

41 Supra, Sec. 1640.

42 Hall Mfg. Co. v. Western Steel & Iron Works, 227 Fed. 588,142 C. C. A. 220, L. R. A. 1016 C. 620.

43 Metcalf v Amercian, etc., Co., 122 Fed. 115; Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co., 143 Fed. 242, 74 C. C. A. 462; Buckhorn Plaster Co. v. Consolidated Plaster Co., 47 Colo. 516, 108 Pac. 27. See also Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 50 L. Ed. 428,26 S. Ct. 208. Cf. United Shoe Mach. Co. v. LaChap-elle, 212 Mass. 467, 99 N. E. 289, Ann. Cas. 1913, D. 715.

44 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 11 Fed. 1; Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co., 116 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A. 484, 58 L. R. A. 915; Matthews Glass Co. v. Burk, 162 Ind. 608, 70 N. E. 371; State v;. New Orleans Warehouse Co., 109 La. 64, 33 So. 81; Hartford &N.H.R. Co. v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 26 N. Y. Super. Ct. 411; United States Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, 143 N. Y. 537, 38 N. E. 729; United States Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 58, 42 N. E. 403.

45California Cured Fruit Assoc, v. Stelling, 141 Cal. 713, 75 Pac. 320.

46 Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. Ed. 679, 22S.Ct. 431; Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co., 147 Fed. 491, 78 C. C. A. 607; Bessire & Co. v;. Corn

Products Mfg. Co. 47 Ind. App. 298, 94 N. E. 353; Moroney Hardware Co. v. Goodwin Pottery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 120 S. W. 1088; National Distilling Co. v. Cream City Imp. Co., 86 Wis. 352, 56 N. W. 864, 39 Am. St. Rep. 902; Pulp Wood Co. v. Green Bay etc. Co., 157 Wis. 604, 625,147 N. W. 1058.

47 Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons, 212 U. a 227, 53 L. Ed. 486, 29 S. Ct. 280.

48 Ferd Heim Brewing Co. v. Belin-der, 97 Mo. App. 64, 71 a W. 691; Wagner v. Minnie Harvester Co., 25 Okla. 558,106 Pac. 969. See also Frank A. Menne Factory v. Harback, 85 Ark. 278, 107 S. W. 991; Columbia Carriage Co. v. Hatch, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 120, 47 S. W. 288.

49 Scribner v. Strauss, 130 Fed. 389.

50 General Electric Co. v. Wise, 119 Fed. 922; Johns-Pratt Co. v. Sachs Co., 175 Fed. 70, 99 C. C. A. 92; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Laemmle, 178 Fed. 104; Virtue v. Creamery Package Co., 179 Fed. 115, 102 C. C. A. 413; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. XJti-man, 186 Fed. 174; United States Fire Escape, etc., Co. v. Joseph Halsted Co., 195 Fed. 295.

broadly stated, rights of contract or property, unless directly promoting the illegal plan, are not curtailed by the plaintiff's participation in an illegal combination.61 And conversely, an illegal combination is liable on its contracts with a third person though he was aware of the illegality of the combination when the contract was formed.52