The Sentinel=record., 1914-04-05

If these contracts are not void or voidable, taen the parties are bound to the extent of the validity thereof respectively, if they performed serv- ices hereunder.
 If person persuade a person to break his contract for the indirect purpose of injury to the plaintiff, or of benefitlng the defendant at the ex- pense of the plaintiff, it is a malicious act, which is in law and fact wrong act A party while he may have the right to quit an employment, yet has no right to induce another to to the same thing from a wanton in- tention or motive to injure another The party must have reasonable cause for interference with another's rights, and if his acts are for the pltr pose of injuring the other party there is no justification.
 If a party induce another to break his contract by offering money or better wages, it is unlawful Justi fcaton is where the party has no purpose or intention of wrongfully iajurng a competitor The competi- ton which the law upholds must be honest competition, and not a nah. cious attempt to injure another.
 Judge Lumpkin, in Skinner ys. Scarborough Co.,, held that to pre- vent the defendant from inducing or endeayoring to induce the agents and statesmen of the plaintiff to violate their contracts with plaintiff, and
 leave its service, in violation there of the injunction was authorized"
 Suppose a portion of this contract comes within the rule that makes that portion>yoid by reason of being in restraint of trade, this would not
 inyaldate the (entire contract i'll toto. If this be so, then certainly if the agreements in this contract are diyisable, and contain a stipulation capable of being construed separate ly, one part of which is void because in restraint of trade, while tIie other is not, the latter will be given efLect and enforced.
 The next proposition is this, valid, void or voidable contract, and who has the right to question it's validity Elliott, Con- l9 appears to me to be the law, which is substantially as follows.
 "A valid contract in it's complete sense may we'll be sai dto be one that is enforceable by each party but a contract may be unenforceable be. cause it is not il writing, or because
 it is barred by the statute of limi tations or the like, and still be valid in the sense that although there are obstacles to its enQ1rcement, they may not be incapable of being over come and do not go to the existence of the contract"
 A void contract is not a contract and no legal rights can be created thereby, which either of the parties
 is bound to respect, so long as it re- mains executory, and third parties may also take advantage of it's inva- lidity where their interest would otu erwise be prejudiced But a yoidable contract is not an absolute nullity. It is one which is good unless avoid ed by one of the parties. In other words, it is a contract wEich in ef feet, gives him the option or priyi- lege of making it either vald or void, and if he does not choose to avoid it no one else can do so. So, on the other hand, third persons can acquire no rights under and by virtue of a essl contract. Voidable contracts may be ratified and ratification will prevent subsequent disaffirmalce but void contract is Incapable of rati- dcation in the true sense.
 No one can sue for the breach of contract who is not a party to tho contract, or who does not derive rights from an original party to the contract, or, in other words, who is not privy to it..
 A contract will Do enforced, though indirectly connected with an illegal transaction, if it Is supported by an independent consideration, so that the plaintiff does not require the aid of the Illegal transaction to make out bis case.
 In the case at bar, the defendant undertakes to justify himself, after contessing that he is a member of what is called the Federal Leagus of Baseball clubs, a competitor of IaintiH ln the baseball business, that he nas personally attempted to secure the services of some of said persons mentioned in the complaint as players. whose names are set ou, in the restraining order, but denies that he is attempting Co entice away or interfere with the MIsiness of plaintiff or for said parties to break their contracts with plaintiff and ds nies that if he should secure the sery ices of any such players, that the same would be a great and irreparable injury tJ plaintiff
 The defendant places his defense. not upon the fact that plaintiff has not written contracts with its players. but admits the fact and says said contracts are void, and he has, repre-.