36 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
he would not engage in the same business either at that place or 
any other place or within a given area for a given period of time or 
at any time. All such agreements appear to have been illegal in 
the early days of the common law on the theory that they reduced 
the opportunities of the seller to make a living and tended to 
monopoly.*? Later such agreements were upheld if deemed rea- 
sonable. At this time they are generally upheld if the restrictions 
on the right of the seller to engage in business are no greater than 
those reasonably necessary for the protection of the buyer.*? 
Gradually the terms “ monopoly ” and “ restraint of trade ” took 
on a broader meaning. The term “ monopoly ” has come to mean the 
concentration of business in the hands of a few ** or a combination 
of persons or corporations for the purpose of raising or controlling 
the prices of merchandise or any of the necessaries of life.** The 
expression “ restraint of trade” is now used as the equivalent of re- 
straint of competition and both terms are employed to describe a 
situation where illegal means are used to eliminate or restrict com- 
petition, or to contro] prices, or to form a monopoly. 
This proposition is illustrated by a Kentucky case *° in which the 
plaintiffs were the principal buyers of bluegrass seed in that State. 
They entered into a secret partnership under which each of the 
buyers was to continue to operate apparently independently. How- 
ever, the scheme contemplated that they would secure control of the 
market for bluegrass seed and suppress competition. The scheme 
involved the fixing of the price to be paid for seed, the distribution 
among themselves of seed offered for sale, the price at which seed 
should be sold, and the sharing of profits and losses. The defendant 
entered into a contract with a secret agent of plaintiff under which 
he agreed to sell a quantity of bluegrass seed. He refused to carry 
out his contract, and suit was brought against him. The Supreme 
Court of Kentucky, in holding the contract invalid as part of an un- 
lawful scheme, said * * * 
Taking for a foundation the principle that illegal and unreasonable restraint 
of trade is obnoxious to the spirit of the law * * * this principle will be 
extended * * * to embrace every condition in which an unlawful attempt 
is made to restrain trade and control the market and suppress competition by 
whatever means these ends are sought to be accomplished. 
This case illustrates another well-settled principle, namely, that 
where a contract is held to be in restraint of trade and has not been 
performed the court will refuse to enforce it or allow damages for 
21Anson on Contracts, see. 255. 
2 Tumbermen’s Trust Co. v. Title Insurance & Inv. Co., 248 Fed. 212. 
23 National Fireproofing Co. v. Mason Buiiders Ass’n., 169 Fed. 259, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
148. 
2 Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 114 Ill. App. 75. 
2 Brent v. Gay, 149 Ky. 615, 149 S.. W. 915, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1034. 
