
    Julius Blauner et al., Appellants, v. The Williams Co., Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    October, 1901.)
    Contract — Partial restraint of trade valid — Counterclaim.
    A covenant of vendors that they will neither manufacture for nor sell to any one else any jackets of the design of those they are selling the vendee is valid, is only in partial restraint of trade, and the benefit intended to be conferred thereby is reasonable.
    Therefore, where the vendors break the covenant the vendee may counterclaim the resultant loss against the vendors, in their action for the price.
    Blauner v. Williams Co., 34 Misc. Rep., 823, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Hew York, affirming a judgment of said court in favor of plaintiffs. Action for the price of goods sold.
    M. D. Steuer, for appellants.
    Blumenthal, Moss & Feiner (Benjamin E. Feiner, of counsel), for respondent.
   Gildersleeve, J.

The record herein is such that this court is not permitted to inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence in support of any essential fact. We must assume that the jury correctly determined the facts necessary to sustain the verdict. The defendant was successful in urging its counterclaim, and the plaintiffs appealed. The counterclaim is based upon an alleged breach of contract on the part of the'plaintiffs, and presents the only question we need discuss. The defendant purchased from plaintiffs certain garments, known as jackets, and one of the con- ' ditions of the .agreement- of purchase was that the plaintiffs would' not sell any of these jackets to anybody else. Upon sufficient evidence, the jury found the plaintiffs guilty of a breach of this agreement. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that this contract wes void and unenforcible, since it is in restraint of trade.

/

The contract in question restrained the manufacture and sale of one particular article of a certain design or pattern only, and the benefit it was intended to confer was reasonable. It must be said that the restraint imposed was partial- and well within the rule of enforcible contracts of this nature, as laid down in the leading authority on this subject, viz.; Diamond Match Co. v. Eoeber, 106 Y. Y. 413.

Freedman, P. J., and McAdam, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  