O'Connor v. St. Louis American League Baseball Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1916
• Citation: 181 S.W. 1167,193 Mo.App. 167
• Parties: JOHN O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS AMERICAN LEAGUE BASEBALL COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

181 S.W. 1167

193 Mo.App. 167

JOHN O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS AMERICAN LEAGUE BASEBALL COMPANY, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

January 4, 1916

Argued and Submitted December 9, 1915. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Geo. C. Hitchcock, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT.--Plaintiff below, respondent here, for cause of action against defendant, appellant here, avers that on the day of October, 1909, he and defendant entered into a contract wherein and whereby defendant agreed to employ plaintiff as manager of the St. Louis American League Baseball Club for a period of two years, namely, the years 1910 and 1911, at a salary of $ 5000 a year, payable in semi-monthly installments during the seasons of said two years; that in pursuance of the terms of the contract plaintiff entered upon his duties as manager of the St. Louis American League Baseball Club and defendant paid him his salary to the amount of $ 5000 for the season of 1910; that on November 29, 1910, without just cause or reason, defendant discharged plaintiff and refused to allow him to continue as manager of the Baseball Club. Averring that ever since the date last named he has been ready, able and willing to perform his duties as manager of the ball club under the terms of the contract but that defendant, wholly disregarding its duties in the premises, has failed and refused to allow plaintiff to continue as manager of the club and, although often requested, has failed and refused and neglected to pay plaintiff the balance of $ 5000 due him under the terms of the contract, plaintiff demands judgment for that amount, interest and costs. By an amended answer on which the cause went to trial, after a general denial, defendant sets up that it entered into a written contract with plaintiff which expired on or about October 15, 1910, on which date the services of plaintiff, under the terms of the contract, were terminated and at an end; that under the terms of the contract and as a consideration upon which plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation, plaintiff was required to render faithful performance to defendant of the duties of his employment; that the St. Louis American League Baseball Company is composed of eight corporations, located in eight of the principal cities of the United States and collectively known as the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, and that defendant, as a member of the League, engaged annually in a series of baseball games under a schedule of play arranged by the League and was so engaged in the playing of the schedule during the playing season of 1910, the closing series of games for the season of 1910 in the American League at St. Louis being played between defendant and a team in the League representing the city of Cleveland. (It may be noted here that the St. Louis aggregation is known as "The Browns," and that representing the city of Cleveland is referred to in the record as the Cleveland.) It is further averred in this amended answer that the game of baseball as played by both professionals and amateurs was and is the national sport in the United States; that it is a game which, as played professionally, attracts many spectators, involves large investments and depends for popularity and upon financial returns upon the success of the teams in winning games and the good faith of the players in exercising their best efforts at all times and against all competitors to put forth their best endeavor in playing honest baseball; that careful detailed compilations are made and kept in the American League of the games lost and won by each club and the standings of the several clubs is determined by the percentage of the games lost or won and on this percentage the several clubs in the league are given their respective rank; that detailed statistics are also compiled and kept of the playing records of each individual player in the several clubs and in the League and the players ranked accordingly both as to their ability in fielding and in batting; that in the season ending on or about October 15, 1910, there was keen rivalry in the American League for highest honors in batting average between one Cobb, a player in the League, playing with the team representing the city of Detroit, and one Lajoie, playing with the team representing the city of Cleveland in the League; that the final series between the teams representing the city of Cleveland and defendant was played at Sportman's Park in the city of St. Louis in October, 1910; that the last two games of the series were played on or about October 9, 1910, and were played on the same afternoon; that during the playing of these two games and during the season beginning on or about April 15, 1910, and ending on or about October 15, 1910, plaintiff was acting as the manager of the players representing the defendant club (the Browns); that plaintiff was desirous of favoring Lajoie, who played the position of second baseman on the Cleveland team, in his contest for batting honors with Cobb of the Detroit team, and to the end that Lajoie might be successful in making the highest average for batting honors in the League and in making a higher percentage than Cobb, unmindful and in disregard and in violation of his duties, plaintiff instructed one Corriden, who played the position of third baseman of the defendant club, to play so far back of his regular and ordinary position as third baseman as to allow Lajoie to make what are known as "base hits," which Lajoie could not and would not have made had it not been for the instructions by plaintiff to Corriden; that as a result of the instructions so given, and as a result of Corriden not playing his ordinary and regular position as third baseman, Lajoie succeeded in the two games so played in making six base hits; that the balls so struck by Lajoie were what is known as "bunted" balls and all of the balls so hit by Lajoie could have been properly fielded and Lajoie would not have made the base hits had it not been for the position in which Corriden was so playing under the instructions of plaintiff; that by giving these instructions to Corriden plaintiff violated his contract with defendant and brought the game of professional baseball into disrepute in the city of St. Louis and throughout the country, and because of his unfaithful act under his contract, plaintiff was given his unconditional release from the employment of defendant, and that if plaintiff had a contract with defendant for the playing season of 1911, which defendant denies, the conduct and behavior of plaintiff, as above set out, forfeited his further right to employment by defendant and entitled defendant to dispense with the further services of plaintiff.

A reply was filed to this amended answer, admitting that under the terms of the contract and as a consideration upon which plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation, he was required to render faithful performance to defendant of his duties under the contract, and that defendant is one of eight corporations, together constituting what is known as the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, but denying each and every other allegation in the amended answer.

Trial was before the court and a jury.

The original contract or duplicate thereof between the parties was not produced, plaintiff apparently having filed with his petition a printed form of contract entered into between defendant and some other player, but in the course of the trial defendant produced what purported to be a copy of the original contract between plaintiff and defendant, and which was admitted to be a copy of the original contract, defendant being named in it as party of the first part and plaintiff as party of the second part. Shown the blank form of the contract, plaintiff said he thought it was the same kind of form, with one clause stricken out (not here material); that he, when he met Mr. Hedges and they discussed the matter of his employment, then agreed on salary but the hitch was over the term of employment; that he would not sign up until Mr. Hedges agreed to give him a two-years contract. The paper produced by defendant was agreed to be a copy of the one signed by the parties. As far as necessary to set it out, that contract provides in the first clause thereof, that in consideration of the faithful performance by plaintiff of the conditions, covenants, undertakings and promises hereinafter in the contract set out, "including the option in first party to terminate this contract, the said party of the first part agrees to pay unto second party the sum of five thousand dollars per season, for 1910 and 1911, payable as follows:" (Here follow provisions for payment of salary in semi-monthly installments, etc., not here pertinent.) By the second clause the party of the second part (plaintiff) agrees to perform for the party of the first part, and for no other party, during the period of the contract, unless with the consent of the party of the first part, such duties pertaining to the exhibition of the game of baseball "as may be required of him by said party of the first part, at such reasonable times and places as said party of the first part may designate, for the American League season for the year 1910, beginning on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, and ending on or about the 15th day of October, 1910, which period of time shall constitute the life of this contract, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the further provisions of this contract." The remaining clauses are not material.

It was in evidence and admitted that the blank which was used in preparing this contract was...