The Court stated the general principle as to freedom of contract as follows : " Ordinarily the law leaves to parties the right to make such contracts as they please, demanding, however, that they shall not require either party to do an illegal thing, and that they shall not be against public policy or in restraint of trade . " Gormully argued, however, that this contract is objectionable as a restraint of trade, because it was " an attempt to fetter the defendant from importing or making bicycles, in which he might otherwise have a perfect right to deal, and thus foreclose himself from the ability to earn an honest living in his chosen calling . " The Court said that it saw the real question as " whether the defendant can estop himself from disputing patents which may be wholly void, or to which the plaintiff may have no shadow of title ."
