Clipping:A court refuses to enforce a player contract
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, June 14, 1890 |
|---|---|
| Text | [a lawsuit by York to enjoin Frank Grant from playing for Harrisburg] Continuing Judge Simonton said:--”There is no distinct allegation in the bill that complainant will be injured by the playing of defendant Grant for the co-defendant, except as such playing involves his loss as a player to complainant. Therefore an injunction restraining Grant from playing for the other defendant would not, in any degree, lessen the injury and damage to the complainant, unless it should have the effect of compelling him to play for plaintiff. This it would not, and could not, do directly, and it is concede by the counsel for the plaintiff that the court could not compel him, by its decree, to do this directly, and, therefore, according to the principle laid down by Justice Sharswood, which is undoubtedly correct, ought not to attempt to do it indirectly.” The Court holds as another reason why the injunction should not be granted in this case that the contract between Grant and the complainant is not mutual. The agreement set out in the bill contains this clause: “It is further agreed between the parties hereto that the party of the second part (the plaintiff), reserves the right to abrogate this agreement at any time when it appears that the said party of the first part is not fulfilling his agreement to the best of his ability.” Judge Simonton says, under this clause it would be in the power of the plaintiff, at any moment, to dismiss the defendant from its service, and that the contract is therefore not mutual. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />