CHAPTER V
Indirectness of Restraint
One would think, in reading some of the briefs submitted on behalf of the trusts, that "indirectness of restraint" was a mere arbitrary unmeaning phrase solely devised that a trust could make some pretense of a defence in the absence of all real ones, whereas it means little more than the absence of dangerous probability explained by Mr. Justice Holmes. So, it is the present purpose to inquire not merely whether this be so, but whether it is not, indeed, but an abbreviation covering one of the most essential and scientifically thought out doctrines of the law.
If the doctrine, in this connection, be understood, it may be defined as the effort of the law so to limit the doctrine of tendency as to prevent its improper extension to the extinguishment of all other rights, or "the doctrine of indirection defines the limitations of the doctrine of 'tendency' so that all rights and powers may not be absorbed by an absurd extension of the latter."
The first and most important thing to be remembered in this connection is that the doctrine has no application whatever to tortious or involuntarily suffered restraints, its sole application being to cases of voluntary or contractual restraint, involving in its accomplishment no wrongful means or end. This is constantly overlooked in argument, and leads but
31
