Clipping:A judge compares the reserve to slavery
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, March 12, 1890 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on the oral argument in Philadelphia Ball Club v. Hallman 3/7/1890] The court was crowded with people, and when Judge Thayer, during Col .Vanderslice's argument [for Hallman], remarked:-- “How is this? Do these people claim the right to a man's services indefinitely? I see by this brief that they can release him on ten days' notice,” and Col. Vanderslice replied “Yes” and the Judge said “That's a bond of slavery,” those in the room nodded to each other, as each believed it meant that the defendant would surely win his case. The Sporting Life March 12, 1890 [from Judge Thayer's opinion, which is given in full] It is not said anywhere in the agreement that the terms upon which he is to be 'reserved' are to be the same as those upon which he was employed in 1889. The failure to designate the terms and conditions of the new engagement under which he is to be 'reserved' renders the contract of reservation wholly uncertain, and therefore incapable of enforcement, especially by a proceeding which is a substitute for a decree for specific performance, for specific performance is never decreed of a contract the terms of which are uncertain. If they made an incomplete, or uncertain or an ineffectual agreement to retain the defendant for another season it is their fault, for the agreement was evidently drawn up wholly in their interest, but the defendant's rights cannot be affected thereby. Now if, on the contrary, it be said, as was assumed by the plaintiff's counsel on the argument that the fair meaning of Art. 18 is that Hallman should enter into another contract for the season of 1890, precisely similar in all respects to the contract executed in 1888, and embracing all its provision, then it follows, of course, that he must hereby bind himself afresh by Art. 18 to renew the contract for 1891, and again in 1891 for 1892, and in 1892 for 1893, and so on from year to year, so long as it may suit the pleasure of the plaintiffs to insist upon the reservation clause and its annual renewal; for there is no more reason and no more warrant for dropping out Art. 18 from the new contract, if the new contract is required to be the same in all respects as the old, than for dropping out of it any other of the original nineteen articles. … The only demand which the plaintiffs have made upon Hallman was that contained in the written notice served on him on Oct. 21, 1889. That notice required him to sign a new contract of similar tenor, form and term as the old contract. Such a contract must necessarily embrace Art. 18. If they intend to leave out Art. 18 they should have said so. They had no right to require him to renew the old contract upon the terms mentioned in their notice of Oct. 21, 1889. He is in no default, therefore, for refusing to comply with the demand contained in that notice, and it is too late now for them to give him a fresh notice. It is their own fault, not his, if they demanded more than they had a right to demand. The Sporting Life March 26, 1890 |
| 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" />