In Quebec, an injunction has been refused to re strain a bread driver from employing himself with a competing firm, altho he had bound himself to his employer for a certain period, and had agreed that he would not engage in the bread business or in the soliciting of orders for bread for a certain period in the City of Montreal. It was held that his services were not of such a unique and unusual character that he could not be replaced, and that any loss that might be caused by his leaving could be reasonably and adequately compensated for,- in damages. Appar ently, however, it is not a restraint of trade for a dealer in liquors to bind himself to sell only the liquors of a certain firm.' The general rule, as laid down in the Nordenfelt case, is that the restraint must not be greater than is reasonably necessary for the protection of the parties, and so as to be contrary to public policy.
5. Unlawful in re straint of trade are unlawful and criminal. Thus combinations between dealers in staple commodities to control and increase the price by decreasing the production or competition are illegal and void. The law may be stated as follows: Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not ex ceeding $4,000 and not less than $200, or to two years' imprisonment, or if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding $10,000, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company; (a) to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, pro ducing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; (b) to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; (c) to unduly prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; (d) to unduly prevent or lessen competi tion in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in- the price of insurance upon person or property. This rule, however, is not construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employes for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employes. As combination in restraint of trade is illegal, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that parties to it have no standing in court, and the court will not assist in enforcing such contracts. In the United States, however, it has been held illegal for workmen to combine to enhance the price of their labor. For example, it was said in an Illinois case: 1 All of the members of the association are engaged in the same business within the same territory, and the object of the association is purely and simply to silence and stifle all competition as between its members. No equitable reason
for such restraint exists, the only reason put forward being that, under the influence of competition as it existed prior to the organization of the association, prices for stenograph ical work had been reduced too far, and the association was organized for the purpose of putting an end to all competi tion, at least as between those who could be induced to be come members. True, the restraint is not so far-reaching as it would have been if all the stenographers in the city had joined the association, but so far as it goes it is precisely of the same character, produces the same results and is sub ject to the same legal objection.
Greenhood, on Public Policy, points out, how ever, that where the means contemplated and the ob jects sought are not unlawful, combinations of workmen to control the price of their labor or skill are not necessary illegal. He says: Combinations of artisans for their common benefit, as for the development of skill in their trade, or to prevent over crowding therein, or to encourage those belonging to their trade to enter their fold, or for the purpose of raising the prices of labor, are valid, provided no force or other unlaw ful means be employed to carry out their needs, or their object be not to impoverish third persons, or to extort money from employers, or to encourage strikes or breaches of contract, or to restrict the freedom of members for the purpose of compelling employers to conform to their rules.' In an American case, where a wallpaper company sued to recover the price of wallpapers which it bad supplied, the defendant pleaded that the company was a combination in restraint of trade.' It was clear from the evidence that the company had a monopoly, and that it was really an illegal combination of fac tories in the wallpaper trade. The Supreme Court pointed out that to give judgment in favor of the company would be to legalize and make effective the illegal agreement constituting the monopoly, and the court said: Such a judgment cannot be granted without departing from the salutary rule long established in the jurisprudence of both this country and England, that a court will not lend its aid in any way to enforce or to realize the fruits of an agreement which appears to be tainted with illegality, al tho the result of applying that rule may sometimes be to shield a defendant who had got something for which, as between man and man, he ought perhaps to pay, but for which he is unwilling to pay. In such cases the aid of the court is denied, not for the benefit of the defendant, but be cause it should be denied without regard to the interests of individual parties.