in the discretion of the court. See Tying Contracts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements, infra.

Section 33:1-43 provides that it shall be unlawful for any owner, part owner, stockholder, or officer or director of any corporation, or any other person whatsoever interested in any way whatsoever in any brewery, winery, distillery, or rectifying and blending plant or any wholesaler of alcoholic beverages, to conduct, own either in whole or in part, or be directly or indirectly interested in the retailing of any alcoholic beverages except as provided in this chapter, and such interest shall include any payments or delivery of money or property by way of loan or otherwise accompanied by an agreement to sell the product of said brewery, winery, distillery, rectifying, and blending plant or wholesaler. See Special Antitrust Laws: Liquor, supra. 2. Public Contracts

No provisions.

No provisions.

3. Anticoercive Financing Statutes

Judicial Decisions

It is within the power of the legislature to delegate to the public utility commission the power to approve the leases or articles of merger or consolidation of railroads. Section 48: 12-126 is limited to this extent by the Public Utility Act, sections 48:2-1 et seq. (L. 1911, c. 195). West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commisisoners, 85 N. J. L. 468, 89 Atl. 1017 (1914), affd, 87 N. J. L. 170, 94 Atl. 57 (1915).

Resolution of board of alderman of a city which required that all printing for the board be done in printing shops who recognize trade unions and pay union wages to their employees was held to be void as it excluded all persons except those of a specified class. This tends toward monopoly. Paterson Chronicle Co. v. City of Paterson, 66 N. J. L. 129, 48 Atl. 589 (1901).

Commissioners of a city, attempting by resolution to grant an exclusive franchise for the collection and cremation of garbage for a period of 20 years, had no power, without legislative authority, to create such monopoly. Conover et al. v. Long Branch Commission, 65 N. J. L. 167, 47 Atl. 222 (1900). See also Schwarz Bros. Co. v. Board of Health, 84 N. J. L. 735, 87 Atl. 463 (1913).

II. CONTRACTS NOT TO COMPETE

No statutory provisions.

Judicial Decisions

Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to the Sale of a Business.

Vendor of private banking business agreed not to compete in same city for 10 years was held valid and enforceable. Hoagland v. Segur, 38 N. J. L. 230 (1876); in such an agreement it is competent for the parties to liquidate the damages to be recovered in case of breach. Id. Vendor of stockyards business agreeing not to compete for 15 years in same city or within 200 miles thereof is not an unreasonable restraint and is valid. Ellerman v. Chicago Junction Rys. & Union Stock-Yards Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 23 Atl. 287 (1891).

A covenant by vendors of a sheet-iron business not to compete in city where business sold was located was held valid. Carll v. Snyder et al., 26 Atl. 977 (1893).

Vendor of a factory engaged in business of manufacturing and selling sanitary pottery ware agreed not to compete for a period of 50 years "within any State of the United States of America, or within the District of Columbia, except in the State of Nevada and the territory of Arizona." Although sale of such products had never been carried on by the sellers in some of the territory described, the contract was divisible and could be enforced in such territory wherein the business had been carried on. Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723 (E. & App., 1899), mod'g Trenton Potteries v. Oliphant, 56 N. J. Eq. 680, 39 Atl. 923 (1898).

Vendor, who was principal stockholder of a meat business agreed not to compete for 20 years "within 500 miles of Jersey City." This is interpreted as meaning two areas, Jersey City and the area within a radius of 500 miles from Jersey City. The covenant was held enforceable in the area where the business was carried on (Jersey City). Fleckenstein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein, 76 N. J. L. 613, 71 Atl. 265 (E. & App., 1908).

Vendor of business manufacturing white porcelain doorknobs agreed not to compete for a period of 5 years. The covenant was held valid. Artistic Porcelain Co. v. Boch, 76 N. J. Eq. 533, 74 Atl. 681 (1909).

Vendor of shoe-repair business agreed not to compete in same city for 5 years; during such period vendee resold said business, and the

covenant was held reasonable and therefore enforceable by transferee of vendee. Palumbo v. Piccioni, 89 N. J. Eq. 40, 103 Atl. 815 (1918). Manager for vendor of confectionery business together with vendor agreed not to compete in city and such covenant was to "remain in force after the above-mentioned store will be sold to other parties." The covenant was not an unreasonable restraint and is valid. Scherman v. Stern, 93 N. J. Eq. 626, 117 Atl. 631 (E. & App., 1922).

A covenant by the vendor of a wholesale cracker business not to compete for 10 years within a radius of 10 miles of territory covered by said business at time of sale, was held valid. Nachamkis v. Goldsmith, 101 N. J. L. 356, 128 Atl. 238 (1925).

Vendor of a partnership interest in a dry-goods store covenanted not to compete for 2 years within 2 miles of store wherein continuing partner conducted such business. The covenant was held valid. Yanko v. Goldberg, 98 N. J. Eq. 536, 131 Atl. 513 (1925); Id., 101 N. J. Eq. 170, 137 Atl. 645 (E. & App., 1927).

A covenant by the vendor of a grocery business not to compete for a period of 5 years within a radius of 20 "square blocks" from said 607 Summit Avenue, Jersey City, is valid. Katz v. Newman, 97 N. J. Eq. 284, 127 Atl. 255 (E. & App., 1925). See also Mazie et al. v. Wilson et al., 103 N. J. Eq. 569, 144 Atl. 13 (1928); Stein v. Konmit, 105 N. J. Eq., 90, 147 Atl. 111 (1929).

Vendor of a coal business agreed not to engage in the "buying, selling, or delivering of coal for consumption within the limits of the city of Jersey City and the territory adjacent thereto, which may be conveniently served by wagon deliveries from Jersey City (not including New York City) for a period of 20 years." The covenant is not unreasonable, and the restraint sufficiently necessary for the protection of the buyer's interests. R. H. Perry & Co. v. Burns Bros., 101 N. J. Eq. 409, 139 Atl. 41 (1927) aff'd. 103 N. J. Eq. 366, 143 Atl. 918 (E. & App., 1928).

A covenant by a vendor of a bakery business not to compete "within a radius of 60 blocks, in any direction, it being the intention that this covenant shall be limited to a radius of 3 miles," is valid and enforceable. Bloomfield Baking Co. v. Maluvius, 112 N. J. Eq. 109, 163 Atl. 441 (1932). See also Sandullo v. La Bruna, 111 N. J. Eq. 4, 160 Atl. 834 (1933).

The owner of patents to certain sound-producing devices in an agreement ancillary to the sale of such patents, machinery, equipment, and goodwill agreed not to compete for 18 years within the United States. The covenants are valid and reasonably necessary

for the protection of the interests sold. Voices, Inc., v. Metal Tone Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., 119 N. J. Eq. 324, 182 Atl. 880 (1936) aff'd 120 N. J. Eq. 618, 187 Atl. 370 (E. & App., 1936) cert. den. 300 U. S. 656, 57 Sup. Ct. 433, 81 L. Ed. 866 (1936).

Vendor of baking business covenanted not to compete at any time within 1,000 miles of where business was located. The restraint is unlimited in time, and too broad in space. The restriction is unreasonable and therefore void. Althen v. Vreeland, 36 Atl. 479 (1897). Covenantor was prohibited for 10 years by agreement from entering into the silk-finishing business or any similar business, or being connected with it in any manner or form, within the United States. The covenant was held invalid as an unreasonable restraint. Wyder v. Milhomme, 96 N. J. L. 500, 115 Atl. 380 (E. & App., 1921). See also Stevens & Thompson Paper Co. v. Brady, 106 N. J. Eq. 410, 151 Atl. 92 (1930).

A covenant, by the vendor of a restaurant, not to compete as principal, agent, or otherwise within a defined area and for a fixed period of time, is violated by working in a competing restaurant as waiter or cook. Borgodos v. Chacalos et al., 109 N. J. Eq. 5, 156 Atl. 124 (1931).

A covenant by a vendor of a bus line, which operated between Wiljiamstown, N. J., and Philadelphia, Pa., not to compete by operating any bus line between points in New Jersey and any other State is unenforceable as tending to create a monopoly. The restriction is unreasonable and unnecessary for the protection of the vendee's interests. Schultz et al. v. Johnson, 110 N. J. Eq. 566, 160 Atl. 379 (E. & App., 1932).

Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to Sale of a Professional Practice.

Partnership agreement entered into by physician and former assistant provided that in event that such partnership was terminated the latter agreed not to compete for 3 years in Atlantic City. The covenant was held to be reasonable. Marvel v. Jonah, 83 N. J. Eq. 295, 90 Atl. 1004 (E. & App., 1914). Note dissenting opinion; rev'g. 81 N. J. Eq. 369, 86 Atl. 968 (1913).

Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to Employment.

A covenant by an ice-wagon driver not to compete for 1 year after termination of employment in territory covered by route or within 5 squares therefrom was held valid. American Ice Co. v. Lynch, 74 N. J. Eq. 298, 70 Atl. 138 (1908). See also Owl Laundry Co. v. Banks, 83 N. J. Eq. 230, 89 Atl. 1055 (1914); Same v. Delger et al., 89 Atl. 1056 (1914); Pen Carbon Manifold Co. v. Tomney et al., 90 N. J. Eq.

233, 110 Atl. 445 (1919); Sarco Co. v. Gulliver, 3 N. J. Misc. 641, 129 Atl. 399 (1925) aff'd per curiam, 99 N. J. Eq. 432, 131 Atl. 923 (1926).

Real-estate salesman agreed not to compete for 1 years in city wherein employer did business. The agreement was held valid and enforceable. J. I. Kislak, Inc., v. Muller, 100 N. J. Eq. 110, 135 Atl. 673 (1926).

A covenant by an employee, working in capacity of assistant floor supervisor in laundry not to compete for 2 years in two counties wherein employer operated was upheld. Ideal Laundry Co. v. Gugliemone, 107 N. J. Eq. 108, 151 Atl. 617 (E. & App., 1930). See also Grober v. Strick et al., 77 Fed. (2d) 762 (1935); Davy Tree Expert Co. v. Ahlers, 124 N. J. Eq. 175, 200 Atl. 1012 (1938).

Driver and solicitor for meat products business agreed not to compete for 1 year in seven counties in the State wherein employer operated. A third party, who had purchased employer's business subsequent to breach of covenant by employee, can enforce such covenant. It is no defense that the third party did not obtain a specific assignment of such covenant at the time of purchase. A. Fink & Sons v. Goldberg, 101 N. J. Eq. 644, 139 Atl. 408 (1927).

A striking employee, quitting employment without notice, was held to have violated his contract not to compete by appealing to customers of employer not to deal with such employer until strike was settled. Perfect Laundry Co. v. Marsh, 121 N. J. Eq. 588, 191 Atl. 774 (E. & App., 1937) rev'g 120 N. J. Eq. 508, 186 Atl. 470 (1936).

A covenant by a physician, employed as assistant to another physician, "not to engage in the practice of medicine or surgery in the city of Newark at any time hereafter" was held to be an unreasonable restraint and therefore invalid. Mandeville v. Harmon, 42 N. J. Eq. 185, 7 Atl. 37 (1886). For other employee's covenants not to compete see Sternberg v. O'Brien, 48 N. J. Eq. 370, 22 Atl. 348 (1891); Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Nichols et al., 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 Atl. 186 (E. & App., 1908) rev'g 70 N. J. Eq. 541, 65 Atl. 695 (1907); Steinmeyer v. Phenix Cheese Co., 91 N. J. L. 351, 102 Atl. 150 (E. & App., 1917); Gordon Supply Co. v. Galuska, 113 N. J. Eq. 353, 166, Atl. 700 (1933); Bond Electric Corp. v. Keller, 113 N. J. Eq. 195, 166 Atl. 341 (1933). Restrictive Covenants not Ancillary to Sale of a Business Interest.

A covenant made by vendor of real estate, that neither he nor his assignees will sell any marl from the premises adjoining the tract conveyed, being in general restraint of trade, was held void. Brewer v. Marshall, 19 N. J. Eq. 537 (1868).

Several inventors holding patents and improvements for electric car lighting devices sold such patents and improvements in considera