The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-07-22
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT ATTRACTS EYES OF LAWYERS
 BY HANDING DOWN EGHTY-ONE IMPORTANT OPINIONS
DECIDES BALL CASE
MIR. ROBERTSON MAY ENJOIN MIR.
 RAGLAND.
The Supreme Court Reverses Decision of Chancellor Parks and Leaves Controversy Over Baseball
 Team Open Again.

W. T. Robertson and his associates were sustained yesterday by the Su- preme Court in their contention that they have a right to enjoin w. H. Ragland and the Montgomery Baseball Association from playing games at Highland Park.
 ' The opinion was written by MT. Chief Justice Mcclellan and Chancel- Tor Parks is reversed and the case rem dered.
 This leaves the matter open to an- other suit and MT. Robertson will probably proceed by legal process to stop ball games at Highland Park if possible.
 The case is stated In the opening paragraph of the opinion as follows:
 The Montgomery Baseball Associa- ton and W. H: Ragland are com plainants und w. T. Robertson and seeks injunctive relief only and this of a character peculiar and anomal- ous. Its sole purpose Is to prevent the respondents from interfering with the playing of baseball by tne Montgomery team of the Southern --~.s.e a, I,ish- land Park in the city of Montgomery under the control of Ragland as as- signee of said leagues franchise granted to the Montgomery Baseball Association. This apprehended inter- ference is threatened. the bill shows, only by and through the means of writs of injunction which, 1t Is averred the respondents will cndeavor to have issued on a bill or bills to be filed by them. 1t Is averred that none of the respondents has any rights 10 be con- served by such bill or bills and re- straining process thereon; but that they are moved thereto by suggestions by the motive. also illegitimate. of forcing the playing of the games of ball in said league on the line of street railway of the Montgomery Traction Company. one of the respon- dents."
 After stating that the petitioners pray that the respondents. MT. Robert son and others, be enjoined from talk ing any steps to enjoin the complain ants their agents. etc. from playing the opinion states that the averrment of improper motives on the part of the respondents is not of importance: the law does not inquire into the mo- has a right to do.
 It is stated that the only danger which may threaten the rights of complainants Is that some high judi properly enjoin them upon facts which would not warrant such a decree.
 It Is held by the opinion that tho Supreme Court cannot properly pro- ceed upon the theory that other courts or judges will act erroneously, or ex- cfse their discretion i'll advisedly or improperly.
 Continuing the opinion says:
 The bill before us. proceeding as 1t does alone on the theory that com plainants will suffer irreparable inury from erroneous and improper judicial action upon prayer for injunction in bills which respondets threaten to file. and seeking only injunctive relief fore stalling such apprehended future mis- carriage of justice and maladministra- ton of law. presents no case of equita- ble cognizance. The injunction issued on the filing of the bill should have been dissolved for want of equity in the bill. and the motion to dismiss the bill for want of entity should have been granted.p It is stated that the court has not considered the ultimate merits of the controversy between the parties in volved and finally the court reverses the decree of the Chancery Court of Montgomery refusing to dissolve the injunction and the decree overruling the motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity The case is rendered and a decree is entered by the Su- preme Court dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill.