The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-03-27
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
a CONTRACT MUST BE SIGNED TO
HOLD = PLAYER.

I The Reserve Clause Only an Agree
ment to Negotiate for an Engage
msut, and Can't be Made the Basis
Of ea action for Dsmsges-Ewing
Not Enioined.
NEW YORK. March Gin the case of
tie Me,ropolitan Exhibition company
agails, Buck" Ewing, asking for al in
| junction to restrain the latter from playing
with any other club. Judge Wallace this
morning, sitting in the United States cir
cult court, denied the motion. Judge Wal
lace says:
The case turns on the meaning Of the clause
when gives the ciuD the right to reserve the de-
PENDANT Ths effect of these provisions is tuat
wheu a club has exercised its privi-
lege of reservation, no other club l.
permitted to negotiate with q PLAYER but
the club which has placed him upon its
reserve list, aud no other is then at ill.,
| erty TO enter into contract with
! him TO obtain his services for the
ensuing year, consequently the right OF
reservation i nothing more or less than prior
and exclusive right as against other clubs to
enter into contract securing player services
Tor another season.
A CONTRACT MUST BE SIGNED.
Until contract is ma le which fixes the COM
pensation o. the player and other conditions of
ms service, there Is no deInite or complete
obligation upon his part to @ gaze with the
cluni ne agrees that he will not ne gotiate with
any other club, but enjoys the privilege of en-
gaSlng with the reservlGg club or not as he sees
Mt. Read with this understanding the clause in
question by which the privilege Of reservin the
defendant Is given TO club expresses definitely
the terms of the option.
CANT BE ENFORCED.
AS a coercige condition which places player
practically in the situation where he must con
tract with the club that has reserved him or face
the probability of losing any engagement for
the ensuing season, it is operative and valuable
to the club But as the basis for an action for
damages if player fails to contract or for an
action to enforce specific performance, it is
wholly nugatOrY. In a legal sense it is m rely
TO make contract if tue parties can agree.
1t may be that heretofore clubs have gener-
ally insisted on treating opposition 10 the re
serve as contract by which they were eatitlei
to have the services of a player for the next
season upon ths terms and conditions of the
first ason, AMI even requiring him to enter
INTO new contract containing an option by
reservation, and 1t may be that the players
have generally acquiesced in the claims of the
clubs.
had THEM ON THE HIP.
However this may be- the players were not in
a position to act Independently, aud if they mad
refused to consent to the terms proposed by the
ciuos they would have done 50 at the peril of
losing any engagement. The facts. tn erefore,
are not such as to permit any We GIT to
be given to the acts OF the parties as evucing
their own construction of the contract 1t fol
lows that the act OF the defendant in refusing
TO negotiate with the CLUB for an engagement
for the season Of 1890, while a breach of con
tract, is not a breach of one which the plaintiff
can enforce.
The motion for ar Injunction is denied
The Players League and their friends are
in high glee. They think this decision set
ties the question here aud everyw here else.