Fleischman

(after stating the facts as above).

At the close of the testimony the defendant, following the practice in Alaska, moved for judgment on the pleadings and evidence, on the ground that the defendant’s agreement not to engage in general merchandise business at Rampart was separate and distinct from the sale of the goods, and not related thereto, and that the defendant had not in fact violated the same, and that there was no competent evidence that the plaintiff had sustained damages. Upon the conflicting evidence the court below found as one of the facts that the sale and agreement were so united in time and purpose as to be one contract, and we must take that finding to be conclusive here. The fact that *351 there was in this case no sale of the good will of the defendant’s business is immaterial. The sale of the stock of merchandise was a good consideration for the accompanying agreement not to engage in such business. Nelson v. Brassington, 64 Wash. 180 , 116 P. 629 , Ann.Cas.1913A, 289; Beard v. Dennis, 6 Ind. 200 , 63 Am.Dec. 380. In United States v. Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290, 329 , 17 S.Ct. 540 , 41 L.Ed. 1007 , the court recognized the right of parties to make such a…