Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-03-27
THE PLAYERS LEAGUE HAPPY.
An Important Baseball Decision-ihe
Court Refuses an Injunction.
M .ala..ranh q, the NlsnaLch-l

tEy telegraph to the Dspatch.i
Nrw YORK. March 26.-In the case OF the
Metropolitan Exhibition Company against
Buck" Ewing. asking for an injunction
90 restrain the latter from playing with any
other club, Judge Wallace this morning,
sitting in the United States Circuit Court,
denied the motion. Judge Wallace says:
The case turns on the meaning OF the
clause which gives the club the right TO
reserve the defendant. The effect of these
provisions is that when the club has eXer-
cised its privilege Of reservation no other
club is permitted TO negotiate with PLAYER
bur the club which has placed him on the
rcserve-list, and no other IS then at liberty
10 enter into a contract with nm TO OBTAIN
his services for the ensuing year, conse-
qucntly the right Of reservation IL nothing
more or less than a prior and exclusive
right as against the other clubs 10 enter
into contract securing the players
services for another season. lntu
the contract il made which fixes the COM
pensation Of the player and the other con-
ditions of his service, there ~ No dennlte
or complete obligation upon his part to en-,
gage with the club; he agrees that ne VIII
not negotiate with any other club, but en-
lows the privilege Of engaging with q re-
serving club or not as be sees III. Read
with this understanding the clause IN
question bv which the privilege ot re-
serving the defendont IL given to the cluO
expressing definitely the terms OF the 'p-
ton. As cOtrciye CONDITION
which places the player practically IN
the situation where he must contract
with the club that has reserved hun or
face the probability of losing any engage
ment for the ensuing season. 1t is opera
tive and valuable TO the club: but a. the
basis for an action for damages II the
PLAYER fails TO contract. or for an acton 10
enforce a specific performance, lt ~ Wholly
nucatOry. In legal sense II Is merely 10
make contract If the parties can agree.
IL NAV be that heretofore the clubs have
generally insisted upon treating tho op-
ton 90 reserve as contract nv Wblcn
they were entitled 10 have the services OF
a PLAYER for the next season upon the
terms and conditions of the first season,
and even requiring him to enter into q new
contract containing IN option by reserEa-
tion. and il MAY be that the players
have generally acqUiesced IN the claims
of the clubs. However this may be, the
PLAYERS were not in position to act lnde-
pendently and If they had refused 10 CON
sent to the terms proposed by the cluus
they would have done so ut the risk OF
LOSING an engagement. The facts, tnere-
fore. are not such as to permit any weight
to be given to the acts OF parties hs
eyiucing their own construction OF
the contract. 1t follows That the act oil
the defendant IN refusing to ue8o-
tiate with the club for an engagement Tor
the season Of 1890. while breach or con-
tract, is not a breach of one winch the
plaintiff can enforce. The motion Tor an
Injunction IL denied.
The PLAYERS League aud their friends
are in high glee. Ihey think tins de-
cision settles the question here and every
where else