case Michael against reynolds see S c p wms e r with note a bind condition for  restrain a man from the exercise of his trade for a certain time and in a  certain place when enter into upon a fair and reasonable consideration be good  S c post S c Peer wms S c fort a action of debt be bring upon a bind the  condition whereof be that it whereas a have take the shop of b who be a baker  for the term of so many year and have give b so much money for it the  condition of this obligation be such that if during those year b shall not  exercise the trade of a baker within the parish where the shop be that then  the bind shall be void otherwise c the question be whether this bind be good  or not it be argue that the bind be good in the case of clerk v the tailor of  Exeter a lev a there be it must be confess a difference take between a bind  and a promise and it modern report be say that a bind in this case will be  void but a promise good and in other case quote in that case as in the case of  broad v Jolliffe b cro James b this difference be warrant the reason assign  for this difference be two first because in a bind the jury can mitigate the  damage but must give the whole penalty be the damage to the other by set up  the trade ever so small the second reason be that the public interest be  concern to promote and encourage trade and therefore such a condition be  against the public interest against great Charta and malum in see and  therefore the bind void as to the first of these reason it hold against all  bind in general as well as this beside the difference be not true for even in  a promise if it be certain it be say that the jury have no discretionary power  in give damage as to the second it be answer that how prejudicial soever to  the public a general and absolute restraint of a man from his trade may be  certain a particular restraint limit to one place only as the present case be  can be none at all for how be the public concern whether a man exercise his  trade in Holborn or in the strand there be a great difference between the  opinion of the court upon matter before they and what be say obiter and  collateral modern report er p to the case in question and this case have never  be judicial determine but if such opinion be of weight in the case of Thompson  v Harvey c show c there be a difference take between a bind where the  condition be a general restraint and where it be a particular one the bind  there be adjudge to be void because it be a general restraint from the  exercise of a man trade but there it be admit to be good have it be as here it  be only a restraint in a particular place as to the reason of the thing in  general there may certain be a very good reason for the make of such bind  suppose a gentleman have a noisy stink trade near he he may be Willing to give  he a modern report valuable consideration for remove further off suppose a man  give his apprentice such a sum of money provide he will enter into a bind of  such a penalty not to set up within such a distance if this bind be adjudge  void what be the consequence but a mere circuit of action videlicet the force  of he to bring a action upon the promise and give this bind in evidence to  prove the bind void the difference take in the book between a bind and a  promise be strong insist upon and the case of clerk v the tailor of Exeter a  lev a where the aforesaid difference be take be back by other authority  videlicet more Leonard marsh one reason more be offer not take notice of in  the book that the allow of such bind may be a mean of introduce monopoly  Powell justice where a action be bring upon a assumpsit though the promise be  never so certain the jury may mitigate the damage and give what sum they  please many be the authority that maintain the difference between a bind and a  promise no bind be ever yet adjudge good that restrain a man from the exercise  of his trade and he be of opinion that the bind be void Parker chief justice I  never yet know such a bind adjudge void the case of broad v Jolliffe c cro  James c be the lead case as to the difference between a bind and a promise and  the difference itself suppose the condition lawful and most certain there may  be many good reason for enter into such a bind I know of no case except that  of a infant and that stand upon another consideration where a promise shall be  good and a bind enter into for the performance of that promise void it be  something extraordinary that a court of justice shall endeavour to render the  breach of a just and fair promise as easy as possible for that will be all the  consequence of our modern report judgement shall we adjudge the bind void for  if the plaintiff shall fail in this action be may yet have recourse to a  action upon the promise and give the bind in evidence of it and as for the  reason give for the difference between a bind and a promise there be this to  be say against it that as a jury may give less than the penalty so they may  give more now suppose it be my intention to bind myself in such a penalty not  a very great one not to use my trade nigh such a person with design that if I  shall afterward think that the use of my trade will be of more advantage to I  than the penalty it shall be at my election be it reasonable that a jury  contrary to my declare intention in write shall have it in their power to give  twice the penalty if they think fit or the other party be so much damnified by  my breach of promise Eyre justice of the same opinion with Parker chief  justice Adjournatur a this case be argue again in Hilary term whether but the  judge retain the same opinion S c post and in the Hilary term follow Parker  chief justice deliver the resolution of the court that the bind be good S c  post because the special consideration on which it be give be set down in the  condition S c fort S c Peer wms see also Chesman v Nainby stram bro p c a