Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/554

Whereupon they brought a writ of error in parliament, to reverse both these judgments, and to that end, it was insisted (T. Lutwyches, J. Strange) on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, that the bond was void in law, being a restraint of the plaintiff Elizabeth in her trade, either as a mistress or servant; and that not only within the space of half a mile from the dwelling-house of the defendant, but of any other house, which she, her executors or administrators should think fit to remove to, at any time after the plaintiff Elizabeth should have left her service, by which might be meant any part of England, or any time during the plaintiff's life. That it would be of dangerous consequence to allow masters or mistresses to exact or take such bonds from their servants; and in this particular case, the breach was for assisting her husband, which, considering the subjection of the wife to the husband, and which could not well be avoided, made the prosecution on this bond the more unreasonable.

On the other side it was contended (P. Yorke, E. Whitaker), that contracts entered into between two persons to restrain one of them from setting up, or exercising a particular trade or employment, within a certain limited district, and for a valuable consideration, were valid in law, and had been solemnly adjudged to be so. And therefore it was hoped, that the judgments would be affirmed, with costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, and the unanimous opinion of all the Judges having been delivered, upon a point of law to them proposed; it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment of affirmance given in the Court of King's Bench, affirming the judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas, should be affirmed; and that the record should be remitted, to the end execution might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought into the house: and it was further ordered, that the plaintiffs in error should pay to the defendant in error, £40 for her costs sustained by bringing the said writ of error into the house. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 193.)

Mr. Edmonds, by will, dated the 13th of July 1698, devised all his manors and lands in the counties of Lincoln, Hertford, and Leicester, to the appellants Freeman and Miller, their heirs and assigns, and to their use during the life of Dame Ann More; upon trust, to pay the rents and profits of the premises during her life, to such persons as she should appoint, for her separate use, and with which the respondent should not intermeddle, nor should the same be liable to his debts and made the appellant Greenhill his executrix. He also directed, that his executrix should, within six months after his decease, out of his personal estate pay to his said trustees, or the survivor of them, £6000; upon trust, to place the same out at interest, with Dame Ann's approbation, and pay the interest, and also the £6000 for such purposes as she alone, by any writing executed in the presence of two or more witnesses, or any writing purporting to be her will, notwithstanding her coverture, should direct, so as the same should be for her own separate use, and not to be liable to the respondent's debts or disposal.

The testator having afterwards purchased other lands, of about £120 per ann. in the counties of Lincoln and Bedford; be, by lease and release, dated the 19th and 20th of April 1714, conveyed the same to the appellants Freeman and Miller, in trust for himself for life; and afterwards, to pay the rents and profits to Dame Ann, for her separate use for her life; and then to convey the premises to such persons, and for such estates and uses, as she, by will or writing executed in the