The Indianapolis daily herald. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1865-1868, 1865-12-11
LAW RepOrf.
VALIDITY OF BOND PROHIBITING SALE or
INTOXICATING LIQUORs - OPINION BY
JUDGE RAY.

VALIDITY OF BOND PROHIBITING SALE or
INTOXICATING LIQVORs - OPINION By
JUDGE RAY.
William r. Harrison. et al. rs. Alexander
Lockhart. Appeal from Morgan &C.
The appellants brought this action upon :
bond the 60. dition Of which was " that the
appellee would not engage thereafter. NJ any
time. nor in any matter whatever. in the bust
ness Of retailing intoxicating liquors. A. a
beverage or otherwise. within the original
town plat Of the town Of Martinsville Morgan
county. or within a mile thereof. 10y himself or
through the agency Of any other person whom-
sOeyer" The consideration Of the bond was
the sum Of forty dollars. The penalty was i'm
the sum Of i've hundred dollars The breach
Of the bond assigned i that the appellee haS
engaged in the ale Of intoxicating liquors a.
a beverage within the limits Of the original
town plat Of Mariinsvlle. \ plea i'm abate-
ment was filed. hut was not verified. and the
court committed no error in sustaining mo-
tion u strike out the answer. Bradley ".
the Bank. % Ind. -. y demurrer was >u>-
tanned o. the complaint. This j. the error A.
signed The policy ot the law i 10 permit
parties capable II contracting. 10 make their
own agreements. and when founded upon 4
good or valuable consideration, they viii be
enforced. or damages given for their violation
Certain classes a contracts form an exception
10 this rule. and are declared exceptions 10
this policy Of the law. Among these classes
are what are called contracts in restraint Of
trade. There have been numerous decisions
in which this exception o. the general policy
Of the law has been announced and indicated.
And perhaps this has nei been done more sat
i>factorily by any judge han 10y >clden. jus
lice. i'm the ca>e II Iutrre.ice y. Adder. 10
Rarl,our'> sup 4. r.. 6ti. lie states the law f.
and the reasons TOR the law. thus:
The validity Of the contract doc not de-
pend i'm the slightest degree upon the question
whether il j. tsneiicial. or otherwise. 10 the
party bound.
The Interests 81 thc pubic alone were con-
>idered in the adoption II the rule. These in
.f..rest~ arr iiNi~ihle into two branches. and II
will tend 10 elu,idatc the subject % make the
distinction.
The welfare Il a state j. advanced by the
increase Of it. productive industry. IL J. inn
i,brtauf. therrfOrt. that each 81 IL citizens
shouid be free 70 employ himself In that de-
parfneuf Of labor in " liich hi personal efforts
will Dc likely % add most O. the aggregate pro
.lurtion. 81 the country. This l. the fr>t and
leading reason fur the rule IN question
But there j. another. The convenience 81
The public requires that al the various trades
and eIuploVrneu Of society should BE- pursued,
each in IL, due proportion, a result with which
ihc exclusion II any individual from his ac-
stl~iomed pursuits has a tendency Ia interfere
4 De- two Reasons Tor the inyalidity Of contracts
IN restraint % trade are entirely distinct from
tA'h Other; one relating 90 the wealth and
pioh'' hnd TIE other g. the convenience Of the
haneh. 'eriain exceptions are recognized A.
tNi>liiS. anu IN speaking ~ one exception 10
me RUE tnls eiins nj Jurist uses this language:
We 'aAe general view Of the subject and
q al the authorities bearing upon II. We hall