RESTRAINT, in law, a restriction or limitation. The word is used primarily in four connections: Restraints on Alienation.—When real property is conveyed in fee simple, restricting the right of the grantee to alienate it, thereby derogating from the grant, it was considered by the com mon law so inimitable to the policy of permitting the ready trans fer of land that such restrictions were stricken down by the courts as illegal. A general restraint upon alienation was thus void, though the courts would uphold restraint limited with reference to time or to a class of persons. See Gray, Restraints on the Alienation of Property (2nd ed. 1895).
A restraint on anticipation consists of an attempt by the grantor of an estate for life to pre vent the grantee from anticipating the income by alienating it voluntarily or involuntarily prior to its acquisition. In England such restraints are invalid save with reference to restraints im posed upon a married woman as to her separate estate during the period of coverture. See Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 39; Married Women's Property Act, 1883, S. 29. In the United States such restraints accompanying the creation of a spendthrift trust are valid in many States. See TRUST AND TRUSTEES.
Restraint of Marriage.—A gift or bequest to a person may have a condition attached in restraint of marriage. A condition in general restraint of marriage is void, as being contrary to public policy, although a condition in restraint of a second marriage is not void. A condition in partial restraint of marriage is valid,
and may be either to restrain marriage with a particular class of persons, e.g., a papist, a domestic servant or a Scotsman, or under a certain age.
A contract in general restraint of trade was deemed void at common law as against public policy (Mitchel v. Reynolds, I P. Wms. 181 [i7i I] ), though a contract in partial restraint of trade accompanying the sale of a business or the em ployment of an individual is valid (United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Co., 85 Fed. 271 [1898]). The modern attitude, however, is that the test that should determine the validity of con tracts in restraint of trade should be whether they are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the parties and not unneces sarily harmful to the general public (Nordenfelt v. Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. [1894], Appeal Cases 535). Legisla tion and judicial decision in recent years have widely affected the doctrines of restraint of trade. See TRUST AND TRUSTEES.
For the United States see Kales, Contracts and Combinations in Restraint of Trade (i918) ; Henderson, The Federal Trade Commission (1924) ; National Industrial Conference Board, Trade Associations. Their Economic Significance and Legal Status (1925).