Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1905-02-24
To Dissolve Any of Its constitu-
ent Associations, Court
Holds.
TEXT OF MYERS DECISION
In suis Fer Injunction of Rockford
Against the Three-Eye
League.

tioa for an injunction Of the Rockford
baseball association against the Three
Eye league
The Three-Eye league defendant
in the proceeding. is purely a volun
tary association. in which the conStitu
ton. bylaws and resolutions involved
In this controversy are to be regard
ed as the written expression of a con
tract or agreement entered into by the
constituent members; il is in the ma
ture OF a partnership agreement, I'M
der the facts alleged in the bill The
sole complaint is, that the defendant
clubs or those composing the league
have failed in the performance of
the contract or agreement entered in
to. Under section Z, of the articles of
agreement, the constitution of the as
ISOLATION. the membership of any club
in the league could be terminated by
the adverse vote of = majority of tbs
remaining clubs, when. for bushes;
reasons. such membership should n,
longer be desirable by the remaining
clubs. What shall consist the bus.
ness reason is left TO the other clubs
other than the one 10 be dropped
This action may be taken at any meet
ing of the league duly convened
At the annual meeting (duly conven
ed) the membership of the complain
ant in the league was terminated b,
a majority vote of the remaining clubs.
in strict conformity of section of the
constitution. bylaws or agreement o
the parties.
Resolution Has no Connection.
The resolution passed at the meet
inS OF Nov. ~, 1902, has no connec
ticn with section either by express
ed language or necessary implication
Watcher the membership is for tern
of one or tarec years, it is agreed By
'hc IartiCs. according 10 section :. that
it may lie terminated any time by
ia Ority vote OF the remaining mem
5.rs Of the league The expression
Al any lime - oar own in:erpreta
ion. The coast.ut'cc fixes ~ partic
Mar time. other than the time when
there is = meeting OF tie Clubs. duly
.ouuveHCl. ana from tlat We hold it
is competent for the club To meet AZ
any tine, and act. under the prOvis
ions OF section :. Even if the reso-
luton of Nov 20. 1902. is to operate
as a suspension of section Z, under the
provisions of section 30. by the same
reasoning. it may BE- held that the res.
olution of Oct. II. 1904. suspended the
operation of the resolution of 1902. II
the constitution and resolution are to
be treated merely as bylaws, as con
tended by complainant. the league had
the power to nullify and abroeate by
resolution in 1904, the constitution and
all other bylaws and resolutions be
fore that time passed and eXacted
The act complained of is 10 be treat
ed as a breach Of contract. for which
there is adequate remedy at law. So
far as property rights are affected.
there is adequate remedy in compen-
satiCn or damages available in an ac-
ton al law. There is no sufficient al
legation of fraud in the case. to author
re equitable jurisdiction.
PrO-MutuaIity la Contract.
The complainants' share of the &C.
cumulated fund for the season of 1904
does not appear from the bill TO be
denied or withheld. and only, as re-
sPects this fund. is there any right 10
accounting. There does not appear
to have been any mutually in the con
tract between the complainant and de
PENDANTS. II does not appear complain
and was under any obligation TO re-
main a member of the league any
length Of time, or, was required 10
consult the other members of the
league when it wished TO terminate its
membership by resignation. Com
plainant had a right to withdraw from
membership at any time under the
constitution or articles OF association.
Another view Of the case, the resolu-
ton of the clubs in dropping the com
plainant and receiving the Peoria club,
was. in effect, a dissolution OF one as
sOciatiOn. and the organization Of an
other This bin seeks specific per
Torrance of a contract by injunction,
and under the showing made by the
bill, il is not such a contract as equity
may compel specific performance, and
for that reason the bill is demurrable. |
II IS not practicable for a court Of
equity to enforce specific performance |
Of the agreement alleged in the bill. |
even if We interpret the constitution. |
and the subsequent resolutions. as |
-ontended for by the complainant. We
think no sufficient grounds for equit- |
able jurisdiction. is shown, that the
demurrer should be sustained. and the 4
bin dismissed for want Of equity"
Rockford Gives Up Fight.
That Rockford sensibIy has decided /
TO abandon its fight is indicated by the I
following in the Republic:
It is not improbable thai the half 4
1f the grand stand ar Riverside park 4
left standing after the tornado last I
fail VIII be torn down this spring b.
the street railway company. for as il
nov stands the roof Is a menace 10
hose who occupy the stand. As the
city railway company would be liable