426 OCTOBER TEP. M? 1907. Argument for Appellaat? 209 U. 8. And it is alleged that the lease was made to defeat such con- spiracy. Other plans of the appellees to hara? the Shawnee Company are averred. The case went to trial on the issues thus formed and resulted in a judgment for defendants (appellants here). The judg- ment recited that "the court haying heard all the evidence offered . and being fully advised in the premises fmds for the defendants and against the plaintiffs that the allega- tions of the petition of the plaintiffs are not supported by the law and the evidence." A motion for a new trial was denied and the case was then taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory, which court reversed the judgment of the court below, and the case was remanded to the District Court, with instructions to that court to render ju?lgment for plaintiffs in the casq. (appellees herel in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, and the prayer of the amended petition. Mr. B. B. Blakehey, with whom Mr. (I. T. Fitzh?lh was on the brief, for appellants: An act is not necessarily invalid because in restraint of trade, when the restriction of trade is an ancillary or incidental result. To be condemned by the law a contract must be an agree- ment between the parties to restrict trade, and such contract is invalid, whatevcr may be the result of its operation. If a purchaser buys one or more compresses and operates them as his own property, competition is to that extent restricted, but being incidental, such contract is not invalid, and will not be held invalid because the purchaser may have taken a contract from the seller obligating the seller not to carry on or resume such business. Such provisions are usual and have been sanctioned by the courts. Fowle eta/. v. Park eta/., 131 U.S. 88; C?bs v. Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396; Cin., P. B. S. & P. P. Co. v. Ball eta/., 200 U.S. 179; Un?ed State? v. Joint Traffic Asso- e/at&n, 171 U.S. 505; Belmont & $o?s v. National Harrow Co.,
�
