SHAWNEE COMPRESS CO. ?. ANDERSON. 42? 209 U.S. Argument for Appettant& 186 U.S. 70, 92; Navigation Company v. Windsor, 20 Wall. 64, 68; Diamond Match Co. v. Roebor, 106 N.Y. 473; To& v. Gross, 127 N.Y. 480; Beal v. Chase, 31 Michigan, 490; Hubbard v. M///er, 27 Michigan, 15; National Ben. Co. V. Union Hospi- tal Co., 45 Minnesota, 272; Whitney v. Slayton, 40 Maine, 224; Pierce v. Fuller, 8 Massachusetts, 222; Richards v. $e?ting Co., 87 Wisconsin, 503; National Enameling & Co. v. Haveman, U.S. 79; Jarvis eta[. v. Knapp, 121 Fed. Rep. 39; Booth et al. v..Davis, 127 Fed. Rep. 871, and cases cited; Carter v. Alli?g, 43 Fed. Rep. 208; Harrison v. Refining Co., 116 Fed. Rep. 304; State v. Shippers Compress &c. Co., 95 Texas, 603; S.C., 69 S. W. Pep. 58. The statutes of Oklahoma expressly authorize a contract of this character. Wilson's Revised and Annotated Statute? of Oklahoma, �19, 820. Both of these statutes were adopted from the statutes of California and have been frequently construed by the Supreme Court of that State. Brown v Kling, 101 Cal!fornia, 295; Gregory v. Speiker, 110 California, 150; Ragsda/e v. Naqle, 106 California, 332; City Carpel Beating &c. Works v. Jones, 102 California, 506; Vulcan Powder Company v. Hercules Powder Company, 96 California, 510. Under these sections of the statute one who leases a com- press and its good will may enter into a contract to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified county. The contract of lease in controversy limits such competition to fifty miles. The evidence did not disclose whether a radius of fifty miles would have carried it without the boundaries of the county or not, but if fifty miles was an excessive restriction, the ex- cess only was invalid and the restriction might be enforced within the limits of the law.
�
