Such a ?n?t ?g v?d ?d not ? ? a ? ? ?nclu?g t?t it would ? a?imt pubic ? ? ? ? ?? ?t of ?, p?vent?g ?m? '? ? ?t? a ?no?ly. ? co? ?1ow overl?k? a well ? ? w?ch wo?d control ? ?y event ? ?e ? ? ? ?. If the G? ?mp? ?m?y i? w? a ?. ? S? ?mp? ?m?y co?d not for ?t ? p?vent the s?ific ?do? of a cont?t for ? ? ?, ?d, a ?, the ?o?ty s?olde? co?d not ? ? prevent such ?do?. Tr? P? Co. v. 0?, 51 N.J. E. ?7; ? M?h Co. v. ?, 1? N.Y. 4?; M?] v. A?n ?c?l Fu?ure Co., 1? F?. ?p. 1? 1?; C?lly v. Un? ? Pi? Co., 1? U.S. ?7; W? ? v. Ch?o Ju? Ry. Co., ? N.J. ?. Mr. J? R. K? and Mr. A?r? W?, ? ? Mr. John W. S?rtel, Mr. Fra? W? and Mr. N? W. ? ? were on the b?ef, for ap?: ? cont?t of l? from the S? ?mp? ? ?y ? the G? ?mp? Comfy, of Ap? 26, 1?, ? c? a combation ?re?bly in ?t of ?, ? prevention of com?tition. and the ?b?ent of a mo? oly, the?fo? ?ing agai?t public ?licy. ? ?t. at ?, ?, c. ?7, ?3; Wi?on's S?tu? of O?ho?, ?819, ?. ?e cont?t ? iHe? ?der the co--on ?w, ?, w?ch ? c? ? contmc? in ?m?o?ble ?t?t of ?e ? ? ?ntra? ? public ?licy ?d void. Under the ?t of ?n? a?ve mfe? ? not o? ? t? in ?o?ble restraint of t?e, but eve? ?n?t ? ?t?t of t?e ? condeced. ? P? Co? Co. v. P?n C? &c. Co., ? W. Va. ?; S.C., ? S. E. ?p. ?4; A?ys? Pi? & St?l Co. v. Un? S?, 175 U.S. 211. ? ?ew of the e?dence, it cemainly ?ot ? ?d ?t ?y ?ion of the lc?c would ?qu?tionably have ? en? in? m?r? of the prov?io? for ?e? ?t ?d ?
�
