barrow against wood in debt in debt upon a obligation bring by barrow against  wood the defendant demand oyer of the condition ei to bring together c and the  effect of it be this that the defendant shall not keep a mercersshop in the  town of Tewkesbury and if he do that then within three month he shall pay  forty pound to the plaintiff upon which the defendant do demurrer in law and  the point be only whether the condition be march report er p good or not  sergeant Evers the condition be good because it be no total restraint for it  be a restraint here only to Tewkesbury and not to any other place wherefore I  conceive the condition good I agree the case in Rep b where a man bind himself  not to use his trade for two year or if a husbandman be bind he shall not  plough his land these be condition against law because where the restraint be  total although it be temporal there the condition be not good but the  condition be not total restrictive in our case and he compare this case to the  case in h feoff with warranty proviso that the feoff shall not vouch it be a  good condition because not total restrictive for although that the feoff can  vouch yet he may rebut so in this case although the obligor can use his trade  in Tewkesbury yet he may use it in any other place and the condition be not  against law for if it be such a condition then I agree it will be nought but  yet the bind will stand good for this be not a condition to do a act which be  malum in see for there the condition be nought the bind also as e b by cook  Instit b but although a man can make a feoff upon condition that the feoff  shall not alien yet the feoff may bind himself that he will not alien and the  bind be good and so I say in our case and if the condition in this case shall  not be good it will be very inconvenient for it be a usual thing in a town in  the country for a man to buy the shop of another man all his ware in it and if  the same be a small town where one of that profession will serve for the whole  town he who buy the shop and ware shall not have the power to restrain he the  same be the ground reason of the contract from use of that trade in that place  it will be very inconvenient wherefore he conceive that the condition be good  and pray judgement for the plaintiff sergeant clarke for the defendant that  the condition be not good for it be against the law and void because it take  away the livelihood of a man that be one of the reason against monopoly Rep  and that I conceive be ground upon the law of God for in misuse chap for it be  say that you shall not take in pledge the neither and upper millstone for that  be his life so that by the law of God the restrain of any man from his trade  which be his livelihood be not lawful and sure our law ought not to be against  the law of God and that be the reason as I conceive wherefore by our law the  utensil of a man profession can be distrain because by that mean the mean of  his livelihood shall be take away and h fol b by hull the condition be against  law and yet the case there be the very case with our case for there a man be  bind that he shall not use his art in d for two ear whereupon hull swear by  God that if the obligee be present he shall go to prison till he have pay a  fine to the king because the bind be against law and therewith agree the Rep b  e a farmer covenant not to sow his land the covenant be void for as I conceive  march report that although the condition be restrictive only to one place or  for a time yet because it take away the livelihood of a man for the time the  condition be against law and void and he cite a case in the point against  clegat and bachelor mich Elizabeth in this court rot where the condition of a  bind be that he shall not use his trade in such a place and it be adjudge that  the condition be against law and therefore the bind void and for these reason  he pray that judgement may be enter that the plaintiff nothing to take in hand  per billam justice reeve do produce some precedent in the point and he say  that the law as it have be adjudge stand upon this difference betwixt a  contract or assumpsit and a obligation a man may contract or promise that he  will not use his trade but he can bind himself in a bind not to do it for if  he do so it be void and for that he cite clegat and bachelor case before that  the obligation in such case be void and he say that the reason which be give  by one why the bind shall be void be ground upon the statute of great Charta  cap which will that no freeman shall be oust of his liberty but per law terr  and he say that the word liberty do extend to trade and reeve say that by the  same reason you may restrain a man from use his trade for a time you may  restrain he for ever and he say that he be confident that you shall never find  one report against the opinion of hull h for the other part of the difference  he cite will James in this court hot and James in the king bench brag case in  which case he say it be adjudge against the action upon a bind but with the  action of the case upon a promise that it will lie but note that all the judge  march report er p videlicet foster reeve and Crawley bank be absent hold clear  that if the condition be against the law that all be void and not the  condition only as be object by Evers and it be adjourn