The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-08-04
BALL PARK OPINION
JUDGE sAYRE FILES VIEWS WITH
COURT.
Supplement to Decree In Which He
Held thatW. II. Ragland As An
individual Cannot BE
EnjoiEei.

: u
park case in which he made decree
Monday dissolving the Injunction SO
far as IL applied to others than the
MONTGOMERY Baseball Association.
The opinion of Judge S1yre reviews
the history of the controversy ana de-
clares that w. Ii. Ragland cannot be
enjoined as an individual for playing
baseball at Highland Oval but that II
the games are being played under the
direction of the Montgomery Baseball
Association it should be enjeined.
Judge Sayres opinion in full Is as
follows.
IN order that the parties to this
cause. in it's further progress may un-
dcrstand the position Of the Court. L
will state>the reasons which nave con-
trolled me in making the decree.
/ Il am dealing with the case present
| ed by the bill. According to the Facts
stated. and my ideas Of the law arts
ing out of those facts, the present own
| ership of the Southern League iran
chise is quite immaterial. For their
| guidance in obeying the injunction, IL
will be very material to determine
| who is playing baseball at Highland
Park-not games of ball with South
| ern League clubs alone, but any games
at all; for in my Judgment the Mont
| gomery Baseball Association ought not
| to be permitted to play games OF pail
with any clab at Highland Park, while
| Ragland as an individual Is Tree to
| play games with any club at any
place.
Ger of the Traction Company, and the
! owner of POI of the 235 shares of the
| capital stock of the Montgomery Base
| ball Association, advised the former,
and procured the latter, to enter into
| Il contract by the terms OF which, on
| a valuable consideration moving to
the Baseball Association, the latter
agreed that all games of ball under
ghnlII1 he nl1Vp1 at Attn
| letic Park during the lease of that
| park and so long as the Baseball AS
ISOLATION continued to be the owner
! of franchise in the Southern League.
| The Southern League is a foreign cor
| poratio or Association. Ragland does
| not appear to have had any individual
| interest whatever in the contract. and
| for aught that appears to the contrary.
| acted in perfect good faith with both
corporations in advising and procuring
| its execution. He retained, neither di-
| rectly nor indirectly. any interest in the
| contract distinct from his interest as a
stakeholder in one and Il salaried
officer In the other.
| The Baseball Association acquired
franchise in the Southern League-had
it when the contract was made Sub
Sequently Ragland severed all connec-
, ton with the Traction Company. He
| then purchased from the Baseball As
ISOLATION its franchise in the Southern
League. The further allegation Of the
| bill in this connection is that the sale
! and purchase of the franchise was made
with the purpose and intent to prevent
the execution of the contract between
| the Baseball Association and the Trac-
| ton Company. Then the allegation is
| that the Montgomery Baseball Associ
alton and Ragland are engaged in hav-
ing games of ball played ut Highland
Park. But whether Ragland is doing
so under IL claim of individual right
| or solely as an officer and agent of the
Baseball Association is not given US to
! know.
1T is entirely clear to my mind that
| the Traction Company did not own the
Southern League franchise, had no
| property right in it, or lien on 1T, and
| therefore cannot be heard to object to
| any disposition made of it between
| other persons unless that disposition
| was made with the purpose of evading
| the contract between 1t and the Base
| ball Association, and further afforded
some opportunity or facility for such
| evasion.
The pertinent inquiry, then, is. first,
whether the Traction Company is in
| equity entitled to specific performance
| of its contract as against the Mont
gomery Baseball Association; and, sec
| ond. whether it is entitled to specific
performance as against Ragland indi-
| vidually.
Il. The Jurisdiction of courts of
| equity to decree the specific perform
! ance of contract, where the stipulations
are expressly negative in form. is I'M
doubted. For example, agreements not
| to carry on a trade. not to run trains
| past a certain point without stopping.
not to ring certain bell. not to write
! or publish a rival work. And con-
! tracts which are entirely affirmative in
| form and Language, may imply and in
| Clude "A negative, so that their VIOLA
| ton may he restrained by injunction,
| G Pom Ed Jur., Sec. 1914, notes) The
| examples mentioned are taken from
| the work cited. and do not seem to in
volve any question of unique. special,
| or extraordinary personal services or
acts. The contract in question in this
case. providing that all games under
| the control of the Baseball Assocfa-
tion should be played at certain
! place, contains conclusive implica-
| ton that no games should be played
| elsewhere, and puts this case, so far as
! the Baseball Association is concerned,
in line with the cases quoted. And
! while every corporation is free to dis
| pose of the whole or any part of the
| property in the ordinary exercise of it's
corporate functions, l can sec no force
in the contention that corporation
may dispose of it's property for the
purpose of evading it's contracts. The
| evasion OF contracts is not Il legitimate
corporate function. The decree in this
| cause will be, If the facts alleged are
| proved, not that the Montgomery Base
| ball Association shall play bali at Ath-
| letic Park but that IT snail not play
ball elsewhere. Therefore. l think the
| Baseball Association ought to be en-
joined.
| Bu( haBIiIlu, IN MS lnulNluuaI
| capacity, is also Il party defendant to
| this bill, and the granting of an in
junction against him in that capacity
must involve the association and proof
| on the part of complainant that he Is
| playing ballI or procuring ball to be
| played. in that capacity; that is to say,
| under his individual control and on his
individual account, There is lack of
| averment to this effect; but assuming
that this point ought not to be con-
| sidered until raised by demurrer, the
| question is whether Ragland. in his in
dividual capacity, ought to be enjoined
and forbidden to do any act which, ii
done by the Montgomery Baseball As
! ISOLATION. would amount to violation
of it's contract with the Traction Com
| pany.
There is no difference in this case
between games played with Southern
! League clubs and any other. All the
rights of the parties To this cause, and
all their obligations, If there be any,
must be referred to the contract. The
contract makes no difference between
! games. The Southern League franchise
| is only referred to for the purpose OF
| fixing the time Tor the life OF the con-
! tract. But if there is any difference,
| the bill wholly fails to set out facts
| which would 80 To show that Rdgluud
ACQUIRED by his purchase of the South
| crn League franchise, any right, IA
cility, or opportunity. to play games
! with Southern League clubs. 1t is not
| shown what are the rights and priVi-
! legcs conferred by franchise in the
/ Southern League, or that there is amy
| lawful monopoly of games With clubs
! in that League. or that games in that
| League have any peculiar Ius"iuDtiunS
| for the public which would make them
! more valuable in their Incidental re
] 81 n a commandments