Sort of. The original 1872 California Civil Code contains a provision voiding contracts that restrain otherwise lawful trade [1]. But that code was intended to be just a codification of the common law, not a major change in the law (except regarding procedures, which it was intended to simplify), so its authors thought that they were simply restating the common-law rule against restraint of trade.
It turns out that either they were wrong in what the common law said, or else it has evolved differently in the years since then, because California's explicitly codified provision has turned out to have much more teeth than the common-law rule it was intended to restate. But they were of the opinion that these kinds of contracts should already have been voided at common law. Unfortunately the codification movement lost steam or else it might've ended up in the law of many other states [2].
It turns out that either they were wrong in what the common law said, or else it has evolved differently in the years since then, because California's explicitly codified provision has turned out to have much more teeth than the common-law rule it was intended to restate. But they were of the opinion that these kinds of contracts should already have been voided at common law. Unfortunately the codification movement lost steam or else it might've ended up in the law of many other states [2].
[1] This is the modern descendant of that section: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
[2] A bit on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dudley_Field_II#Dedicati...