Clipping:An injunction issued against a player jumping his contract
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, August 29, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | In the Equity Court [in Washington, D.C.], last Monday morning [8/20], the case of the New Orleans Base Ball Park Association against the Washington National Base Ball Association and William Widner, to restrain the employment of the latter by the National Club, was again heard, and finally a temporary injunction against Widner and the Washington Club was granted. The case has been one of unusual interest to the base ball fraternity. It involved not only the right of a club to leave one association and join another at any time in the year, in defiance of the National Agreement, but the extent to which an individual club is bound by the action of its associates and how far it is amenable to the laws prescribed by the major leagues in the relation of player and club. The court room was crowded with the friends of the Washington Club, who, with but few exceptions, anticipated a favorable decision. Mr. Safford read the amended bill, which, after repeating the old bill, stated that Widner's withdrawal embarrassed the New Orleans Club and that they had to employ other persons at great expense to take his place. Mr. Cook read the affidavit of H. L. Prince, an expert in base ball and a well-known writer on the subject, in which the cases of the Chicago and St. Louis clubs were cited as instances where their best players had been released and yet had won the championship, in order to combat the idea that any one man's services were essential to the success of a club. In support of their application the attorneys for the complainant cited the cases of McCaull vs. Graham (Lillian Russell) and the recent case of Imre Kiralfy against one of his ballet girls, and after argument Judge Merrick rendered his decision, of which the following is the substance: “It has come to be a well authenticated principle of equity that where a written contract providing for special services, which are of such a peculiar nature that a jury could not determine the amount of damages done by its non-fulfillment, the court would intervene. A court of equity could not compel the performance of a specific duty, but it could restrain the party from continuing those duties elsewhere than as originally contracted. The only inquiry is, if it be a contract requiring the performance of a peculiar service. If it be the contract of a day-laborer, whose services could be easily replaced by a substitute the court will not intervene, but in cases where the duties are of a peculiarly skillful nature, the court, by the exercise of its negative prerogatives, will restrain the recalcitrants. “In this specific case there was a contract calling for the exercise of peculiar skill in its discharge. There has been a contract entered into between the parties under the rules of the Southern League. If the complainants had entered into another association, requiring a change in the performance of the duties of the defendant—Widner--he would have been absolved from a continuance of his contract. But it does not appear that he was required to do anything different nor that any new burden would have been imposed on him by his duties in Texas League not common to the Southern League. “It was obligatory upon the defendant to show how the contract was made void by the change. The fact that the Southern League had been dissolved does not [illegible]. It is claimed that $109 was due him, but he should have set forth when it became due and the manner and time when it had been demanded and refused, if at all. “In a case of this kind it is only necessary that the complainants make out a prima facie case. It is apparent that this is a contract that will expire on Sept. 30, and if it was possible for the defendants to delay and continue it beyond that time it would amount to a refusal on the part of the court to consider the matter. Under these circumstances the court feels constrained to grant the injunction as prayed for, both as to the defendant Widner and his co-defendant, the Washington Club, for to refuse it now would be to render nugatory the peculiar duties of a court of equity.” The Sporting Life August 29, 1888 The Widner case remains in statu quo, the New Orleans Club not having yet filed the required bond. Our Washington correspondent writes us that there is a report about town to the effect that the Southern club has abandoned its case against the Washingtons, on the ground that it does not care to go the expense that further litigation is bound to entail. This rumor may be due to the fact that the mail from New Orleans and the South is somewhat irregular by reason of the prevalence of yellow fever in that vicinity. … Meantime the writ of injunction is inoperative and Widner can play until the final hearing. The Sporting Life September 5, 1888 The case of pitcher Widner again came up in the Supreme Court of the District at [sic] Washington, Monday, Sept. 4, on a motion by counsel for the New Orleans Base Ball Club that the bond filed by the club be approved, and that the temporary injunction heretofore granted, conditioned upon the filing of a bond indemnifying the Washington Club in case the suit should be decided in its favor on final hearing, be put into effect. Counsel for the Washington Club objected to the bond on the ground that there was no proof that the acting president of the New Orleans Club, who signed the bond, had authority to do so or to attach the corporate seal of the club to the papers. Justice Cox, however, overruled the objection and approved the bond, and the temporary injunction now takes effect. There seems to be a question as to whether this injunction restrains Widner from playing anywhere except in this city, though the weight of opinion is to the effect that he cannot now lawfully pitch for the Washingtons either here or elsewhere. Attorney Stafford, representing the New Orleans club, says on this point:--”I am not versed in base ball matters, but legally Widner cannot play with Washington anywhere, and under their rules I think all games in which he participated will be forfeited.” The Sporting Life September 12, 1888 In the equity court at Washington on Saturday last Just Cox dissolved the injunction restraining the Washington Ball Club from using the services of pitcher Widner, whom the New Orleans Club claimed, it being shown that Widner's contract with the New Orleans Club expired September 30. The Sporting Life October 10, 1888 |
| Source | The 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" />