case thompson against harvey Trinity term James roll a bind with condition not  to buy sheep foot of any other but such and such and not above such a quantity  be void for it be in restraint of trade SC comb SC holt debt upon a obligation  with condition not to buy sheep foot c of any other but such and such c and  not to buy above such a quantity c the defendant plead that that be his trade  and that the bind be procure from he to restrain the use of his trade and  therefore be of no force but void in law the plaintiff reply that it be  voluntary give the defendant demurrer argue for the plaintiff that it be a  good condition that dress of sheep foot be not such a trade as the law regard  and the name it so will not make it otherwise than in reality it be and admit  it a trade yet the restraint be lawful be only a particular special restraint  and not universal and general as be the case of broad v Jolliff a on the other  side it be urge by Mr Selby that the bind be void because the condition be  against law   light it be a universal restraint for we must not a former those  of the halfblood be allow only a half share ld Winchelsea v Norcliff Trinity  term James but in the case of smith v Stacy Hilary term car Mod Mod the court  think that the halfblood shall be allow a equal share with those of the whole  blood and the point be at length so settle in the case of crook v wake upon  appeal to the house of lord vern a the court be of opinion that the statute  give a immediate interest in the effect of the intestate to those of his  kindred who be entitle to distribution at the time of his death and award a  consultation SC post see also Peer wms Peer wms a roll Rep Nov cro James  shower KB er p buy of any a great number than he do so that if he leave off  his trade we must leave off we or if he buy none we must not we have aver that  the bind be give upon a unlawful condition and that will make it void as in  the case of simony more cro car cro James march to this the court answer that  these be all void by Act of parliament and that there be a difference between  bind void by statute and shower KB those which be void at commonlaw because of  the unlawfulness of the condition b as a bind not to prosecute a felon I Leon  the averment may be good however if it be consistent with the condition c but  this be plain restrictive of trade because he be not to deal with any person  whatsoever that the plaintiff have deal withal and there be no difference  between a restraint from a particular place and from particular person and in  the company of the tailor of Exeter case d in the exchequer Chamber it be hold  that a restraint from any particular place be unlawful but dolbin justice hold  strong that a bind not to trade in a dale be good and that he always take the  case of Jolliff v broad to be good law at last they all agree this be ill and  give rule for a judgement for the defendant nisi