brown case david CHESMAN et Ux  Plaintiffs margery NAINBY Widow Defendant in  error d February Mews dig go seven see maxim Nordenfelt gun c   v Nordenfelt  Ch contract enter into between two person to restrain one of they from set up  or exercise a particular trade or employment within a certain limit district  and for a valuable consideration be valid viner vol p note to can in easter  term a action be bring by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in the  court of common plea on a bind date the that of October for pound enter into  by the plaintiff Elizabeth when unmarried to the defendant to this action the  plaintiff plead and set forth the condition of the bind which be in the word  follow videlicet whereas the above name Margery Nainby at the special instance  and request of the above bind Elizabeth Vickers be to take her the say  Elizabeth Vickers for her hire servant to attend in her shop and to inspect  her customer there and to show her good and further to stand by and assist her  the say Margery in her say trade and business of a linen draper whereby it be  presume the say Elizabeth if she continue any length of time in the say  service of the say Margery may become a perfect and know person in the say  trade and mystery and whereas the say Margery Nainby consent to hire and take  her the say Elizabeth Vickers upon and in consideration only upon the express  promise and agreement of the say Elizabeth that she shall not nor will at any  time after she shall have leave the service of her the say Margery set up or  exercise the say trade or mystery of a linen draper either by herself or by  any other person or person in trust for her or for her use either direct brown  er p or indirect in any shop room or place within the space of half a mile of  the now dwellinghouse of the say Margery Nainby situate in Drury lane or of  any other house that she the say Margery Nainby her executor or administrator  shall think proper to remove to in order to carry on the say trade of a linen  draper nor shall she the say Elizabeth within the same space of half a mile  direct or indirect be concern in or assist or instruct any other person or  person in the manage and carry on the say trade under colour or pretence of be  a servant to such person or person or under any other colour or pretence  whatsoever which say express promise and agreement join with the good  character and opinion that she the say Margery have in the integrity and  honesty of her the say Elizabeth be the sole consideration and inducement that  have oblige the say Margery to take the say Elizabeth into her service for the  space of three year now the condition of the above obligation be such that if  the say Elizabeth Vickers shall act contrary to and in breach of the above  recite promise and agreement accord to the true intent and meaning thereof or  of any part thereof that then and in such case the say brown Elizabeth Vickers  her executor and administrator shall thereupon pay or cause to be pay unto the  say Margery Nainby her executor administrator and assign the full and just sum  of pound of good and lawful money of great Britain without fraud or further  delay the say sum of pound be the consideration money which be compute the say  Margery Nainby may reasonable expect with a apprentice to the say trade that  then this obligation to be void otherwise to be and remain in full force and  virtue in law and then the plaintiff plead that the say Elizabeth continue in  the service of the say Margery Nainby to the that of April and then depart and  leave the say service and that the say Margery continue to reside and exercise  her trade in her say dwellinghouse in Drury lane from the time of make the say  bind to the day of sue out the original writ and that she the say Elizabeth  within the space of half a mile from the say dwellinghouse of the say Margery  at any time after the departure of the say Elizabeth from the service of the  say Margery direct or indirect be not concern in or assist or instruct any  person or person whatsoever in manage or exercise the trade aforesaid under  colour or pretence of be a servant to such person or person or under any other  colour or pretence whatsoever and further that she the say Elizabeth at any  time after her departure from the service of the say Margery do not use or  exercise the say art or trade either by herself or any other person or person  in trust for her or for her use either direct or indirect in any shop room or  place within the space of half a mile from the dwell house of the say Margery  to this plea the defendant Nainby reply that the say Elizabeth from the time  of make the say bind continue and remain in the service aforesaid and from  thence depart and leave her say service as the say plaintiff above allege and  that the defendant Margery Nainby continue to inhabit reside and exercise her  trader in manner as the say plaintiff S by her plea allege but the defendant  further say that the say Elizabeth within the space of half a mile from the  dwellinghouse of the say Margery in the say plea abovementioned and within  nine month after the departure of the say Elizabeth from the service aforesaid  do assist and instruct a certain person videlicet the say David Chesman in  manage and exercise the trade aforesaid in the condition abovementioned  against the tenor of the say condition to wit in Drury lane in the parish of  saint Giles in the field aforesaid and on this issue be join at the sit after  easter term the cause be try before the Lord chief justice king when upon full  evidence give and after a full defence make a verdict be find for the  plaintiff in that action in Trinity term follow the defendant move the court  of common plea in arrest of judgement under pretence that the bind be void in  law but upon hear counsel on both side the court unanimous give judgement for  the say Margery brown Nainby and judgement be accord sign and enter up of  record the defendant therefore bring a writ of error in the king bench and  upon argument in Hilary term the judgement be affirm by the unanimous opinion  of all the judge of that court brown er p whereupon they bring a writ of error  in parliament to reverse both these judgement and to that end it be insist t  Lutwychp I strange on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the bind be void  in law be 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  dwellinghouse of the defendant but of any other house which she her executor  or administrator shall think fit to remove to at any time after the plaintiff  Elizabeth shall have leave her service by which may be mean any part of  England or any time during the plaintiff life that it will be of dangerous  consequence to allow master or mistress to exact or taker such bind from their  servant and in this particular case the breach be for assist her husband which  consider the subjection of the wife to the husband and which can not well be  avoid make the prosecution on this bind the more unreasonable on the other  side it be contend p York e Whitaker that contract enter into between two  person to restrain one of they from set up or exercise a particular trader or  employment within a certain limit district and for a valuable consideration be  valid in law and have be solemnly adjudge to be so and therefore it be hope  that the judgement will be affirm with cost accord after hear counsel on this  appeal and the unanimous opinion of all the judge have be deliver upon a point  of law to they propose it be order and adjudge that the judgement of  affirmance give in the court of king bench affirm the judgement give in the  court of common plea shall be affirm and that the record shall be remit to the  end execution may he have thereupon as if no such writ of error have be bring  into the house and it be further order that the plaintiff in error shall pay  to the defendant in error pound for her cost sustain by bring the say writ of  error into the house jour vol p