Omaha daily bee., 1914-04-11
FEDS LOSE KILLIFER CASE
Outlaws Are Denied an Injunction
- Against Catcher.
RESERVE CLAUSE is INVALID
DecisiOn of Judge Sessions Holds that
Options on Services OF the
Player BEYOND COntrnct
Period IL Void,

Player Beyond Contract
Period IL Void.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. April TO-
Judge Clarence w. Sessions in the United
states district court today denied the
application OF the Chicago Federal league
chsb for an. Injunction enjoining Catcher
William knlifer. jr.. from playing with
the Philadelphia National league club.
The judge denied the application on the
ground that the Chicago Federal league
club did not come into court with clean
hands" The decision also holds the re-
serve clause Ia not valid.
The decision holds that the contract OF
January 8. 1914, by which Killifer agreed
to play with the Chicago Federal league
club and the contract OF January 20.
which he made on jumping back 10 the
Philadelphia National league club, arc
lin form, valid and binding on the parties
thereto"
Court ROasts ITiIIifer.
Killifer is scored for making the con-
tracts, the decision reading.
This record shows that the defendant,
Killifer, Is a base ball player OF unique.
exceptional and extraordinary skill and
eXpertness. Unfortunately the 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 disre-
gard and violate his express engage
ments and agreements"
After conceding the validity OF the two
1914 contracts the decision says
aulring consideration are these:
"Flrst-Are the provisions OF the 1913
contract between the defendants relative
10 the reservation of the player for the
season valid and enforceable7
And. A ta+,
"second-Are the plaintiffs by their
own conduct barred from seeking relief
In court OF equity?
THE leading authorities, with possibly
one exception, are agreed that executory
contracts OF this nature can neither be
enforced in equity nor form the basis OF
an action at law TO recover damages for
thcr breach. The reasons for the de-
cisions are that such contracts are lack
Ing in the necessary qualities OF definite
ness, certainty and mutuality.
Reserve Clause Void.
The 1918 contract between these de-
PENDANTS, relative TO the reservation of
the defendant. Killifer. for the season OF
1914 is lacking in all OF these essential
elements. II is wholly uncertain and In
definite with respect TO salary and also
with respect TO terms and conditions OF
the proposed employment. II is nothing
more than contract TO enter into a con-
tract in the future. II the parties can
then agree to contract. Although Il is
on sufficient consideration, II.
lacks the mutuality because tho Philadel-
phia club may terminate It at any time
on ten days notice. while the other party
has no such option and is bound during
the entire contract period. A contract ex-
ists, but, II broken by either party, the
other Is remediless because the courts
are helpless either TO enforce its per-
formance OF to award damages for its
breach.
The principle embodied in the maxim
he who comes into equity must come
with clean hands, is a cardinal one lyins
at the foundation OF equity Jurisprudence
The principle thus broadly enunclatel IL
peculiarly appropriate and applicable 10
cases like the present one, where relief
viii not be granted as a matter OF strict
right but must result from the exercise
Of a sound judicial discretion. Measuring
and testing their conduct by this rule
are the plaintiffs in court with clean
handsg knowing that the defendant,
killifer was under moral. IL not a
legal. obligation to furnish his services
TO the Pennsylvania club for the season
Or 1914 they sent for him and by Offering
him longer term Of employment and
much larger compensation induced him
to repudiate his obligation 10 his em.
ployer. In so doing a willful wrong was
done 20 the Pennsylvania club. which Is
none the less grievous and harmful be-
cause the injured party could not obtain
legal redress in and through the courts
Df the land. Can Il be doubted that n
The plaintiffs had not ihterfered Mr. Kill
ifer would have carried out his agree
nent with the Philadelphia club in hon
ssty and good faith9
"Killifer expected to derive a benefit
md profit from their contract and both
knew that such contract 10 performed
would work q serious injury TO the Phila-
ielphia club. The conduct OF both Is not
lnly open 10 criticism and eensure, but
d tainted with unfairness and injusties.
Z not with aetionable fraud. To drive a
Ihrewd bargain is one thing and to resort
"a unfair and unjust practices and meth
DDS In order to obtain an advantage over
. business rival or competitors Is an
'ther Courts OF equity may protect and
.nforce the former, but win not sanction
49, l.,a thst. "a q. a.. t....~ ,tAu