LIBERTY OF CONTRACT. Liberty of contract consists in haying the ability at will, to make or abstain from making, a binding obligation enforced by the sanctions at the law. Judson, Liberty of Contract, Rep. Am. Bar Ass'n. (1891) 233. Whilst closely allied with property and essential to its use and enjoyment, liberty of contract is really, broader in its scope. Ownership( of property is a right residing in a person, and property is any right of a person over a thing (in rem) indefinite in point of user. It is through the abridgment of the right of free contract by denying or restraining the use of property that so-called property rights are invaded in the exercise of the police pow er; id. 232.
Rules which say a given contract is void as against public policy are not to be arbi trarily extended, because if there is one thing which more than another public policy requires It is that men of full age and com petent understanding shall have the utmost liberty 'of contracting, and that their con tracts when entered into freely and volun tarily shall be held sacred and shall be en forced by courts of justice ; L. R. 19 Eq. 462, per Jessel, M. R.
The term "liberty" is used in the four teenth amendment of the constitution to com prehend in one the right of freedom from physical restraint, and also the right in one to pursue any livelihood or calling, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper ; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832 ; Shaver v. Pennsylvania, 71 Fed. 931; and to have their contracts enforced ; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 22 S. W. 350, 21 L. R. A. 789.
The privilege of contract is both a liberty and a property right of which one cannot be deprived without due process of law ; Williams v. Evans, 154 Ill. 98, 39 N. E. 698; People v. Steele, 231 Ill. 340, 83 N. E. 236, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 361, 121 Am. St. Rep. 321.
There is no absolute freedom of contract. The government may regulate or forbid any contract reasonably calculated to affect in juriously public interest ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 31 Sup. Ct. 164, 55 L. Ed. 167, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 7.
The constitutional- guaranty of liberty of the individual to contract does not pre vent congress from legislating upon the sub ject of contracts in interstate or foreign com merce; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. .96, 44 L. Ed. 186 ; Howard v. R. Co., 207 Ti. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 52 L. Ed. 297.
And the right of individuals to contract cannot be limited by arbitrary legislation which rests on no reason on which it can be defended, since this would subvert the right to enjoy liberty ; Leep v. Ry. Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25'S. W. 75, 23 L. R. A. 264, 41 Am.
St. Rep, 109 ; but whenever a statute can be seen to be in the substantial interest of public health, safety, and morals, it may legitimately be upheld even though it inci dentally interfere with liberty of contract ; State v. Holden, 14 Utah 71, 46 Pac. 756,
37 L. R. A. 103.
Among the statutes which, although in terfering wish the right to contract, have been held constitutional either under the police power of a state • or under the power vested in the legiskiture for the public wel fare, are : fixing the maximum of charges for the storage of grain ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682, 5 L. R. A. 559, 15 Am. St. Rep. 460 ; giving a city pow er to regulate the price of bread ; Mayor and Aldermen of Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 140, 36 Am. Dec. 441; prohibiting the manufacture and sale of any article in imitation of the substance of butter ; People v. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123, 11 N. E. 277, 59 Am. Rep. 483; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253; or of oleomar garine colored to imitate butter ; Waterbury v. Newton, 50 N. J. L. 534, 14 Atl. or of oleomargarine unless stamped ; Pierce v. State, 63 Md. 596 ; or of any article designed to take the place of butter or. cheese ; State v. Addington, 12 Mo. App. 214 ; prohibiting the sale of cotton in the seed between the hours of sunset and sunrise ; Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 58, 44 Am. Rep. 128; Mangan v. State, 76 Ala. 60 ; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696 ; for bidding the sale of baking powder containing alum without a label so stating ; Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271, 46 N. W. 410 ; mak ing it unlawful for the vendor of personal property, sold on condition that the title should remain in him 'until payment in full had been made, to take possession of such property without tendering or refunding to the purchaser the sums already paid by him, after deducting a reasonable compensation for the use; Weil v. State, 46' Ohio St. 450, 21 N. E. 643 ; forbidding the sale of stamped and registered bottles without the consent of the person whose stamp is thereon ; Peo ple v. Cannon, 139 N. Y.' 32, 34 N. E. 759, 36 Am. St. Rep. 668 ; fo'rbiddiug any one not authorized by law a note, check, or ticket to circulate as money ; State v. James, 63 Mo. 570; reducing the rate of in terest on judgments ; Morley v. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 162, 13 Sup. Ct. 54, 36 L. Ed. 925 (Har lan, Field, and Brewer, JJ., dissenting) ; giving priority to a mechanic's lien over a mortgage of an earlier date ; Seibel v. Simeon, 62 Mo. 255 ; limiting the amount of property which incorporated colleges might take by devise, grant, etc.; Cornell University v. Fiske, 136 U. S. 162, 10 Sup. Ct. 775, 34 L. Ed. 427, affirming In re McGraw, 111 N. Y. 66, 19 N. E. 233, 2 L. R. A. 387 ; forbidding the importation of foreign labor ; U. S. v. Craig, 28 Fed. 795 ; U. S. v. Rector orChurch of Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. 303; or the employ ment of Chinese labor ; Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274, 24 Pac. 737, 9 L. R. A. 482, 20 Am.