Las Vegas optic., 1914-04-10
FEDERAL LEAGUE LOSES
Y !, Fight FOL, KILLIFER
JUDGE SAYS THE NEW oRcANIzA.
.TloN DOES NOT HAVE
CLEAN HANDS"

Grand Rapids, Mich April TO-
Judge Clarence W. Sessions in the
United States district court, To-Day de-
MED the application Of the Chicago
Federal league club for an Injunction
Catcher William Killifer,
Jr., from playing with the Philadel-
phia National league club.
The judge denied the application |
against the Chicago league club be-
cause the Federal league did not
come into court with clean hands"
The decision also holds the reserve
clause is not valid.
The decision holds that the contract
Of January 8, 1914, by which Killifer
agreed to play with the Chicago Fed
eral league club and the contract Of
January 20. which he made on jumping
back to the Philadelphia National
league club, are "in form valid and
binding upon the parties thereto"
Killifer is scorer ror making the
contracts, the decision reading:
This record shows that the de-
fendant Killifer is a baseball player
Of unique, exceptional and extraordin-
airy skill and experrness. Unfortunate
ly, his record also shows that he is a
person ON whose pledged word little
or no reliance can be placed and who
for gain to himself, neither scruples
nor hesitates to disregar and violate
his express engagements and agree
ments.7
After conceding the validity Of the
two 1914 contracts, the decision says
seThe questions here presented and
requiring consideration are these:
First, Are the provisions Of the
1913 contract between the defendants
relative to the reservation Of the play
er for the succeeding season valid and
enforceable?
Second, Are the Plaintiffs by their
own conduct barred from seeking re
lief in court Of equity?
"The leading authorities, with possib-
ly. one exception, are agreed that execu-
tors contracts Of this nature can
neither be enforced in equity nor form
the basis Of any action at law to re-
cover damages for breach. The rea-
sons for the decisions are that such
contracts are lacking in the necessary
qualities Of definiteness, certainty and
mutuality. avs
'"The 1913 contract between these
defendants, relative to the reservation
of the defendant, Killifer, for the sea-
son Of 1914 is lacking in all Of these
essential elements. It is wholly un-
certain and indefinite with respect to
salary and also with respect to terms
and conditions Of the proper employ
ment. It is nothing more than con-
tract to enter into a contract in the
future, If the parties can then agree
to contract. Although it is founded on
sufficient consideration, it lacks mu-
tuality because the Philadelphia club
may terminate it at any time on 10
Hays notice, while the other party has
no such option and is bound during
the entire contract period A con-
tract exists, but it broken BY either
party, the other is remediless because
the courts are helpless either to en-
force its performance or to award
damages for its breach.
"The principle embodied in the
maxim he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands,, Is at
cardinal one lying at the foundation
Of equity jurisprudence" The decis-
ion continues:
Can it be doubted that if the plain
tiffs had not intefered Mr.. Killifer
would have carried out his agreements
witEpithe philadelphia club in honesty
and good faith?"
eKillifer expected to derive a bene
fIt ard ia profit from their contractt
and beth knew that such contract if
performed would work serious In
Jury to the philadelphia club. The
conduct Of both Is not only open to
criticism, and censufe. but t Is taint-
ed with unfairness and injustice, If
not with actual fraud"
The court concludes
"The motion for an injunction must
be denied. not because the axecutory
part Of the 1913 contract between the
defendants was Of superior Of any
legal force and effect; not because