Robertson v. Montgomery Baseball Ass'n

• Decision Date: 10 June 1904
• Citation: 140 Ala. 320,37 So. 241
• Parties: ROBERTSON ET AL. v. MONTGOMERY BASE BALL ASS'N.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So. 241

140 Ala. 320

ROBERTSON ET AL. v. MONTGOMERY BASE BALL ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 10, 1904

Appeal from Chancery Court, Montgomery County; W. L. Parks Chancellor.

Suit by William T. Robertson and others against the Montgomery Base Ball Association. From the decree, complainants appeal. Dismissed.

The main purpose of the bill is to set aside, on behalf of the complainant, as a dissenting shareholder, the sale of the assets and property of the Montgomery Base Ball Association a corporation, to Ragland, and to enjoin, pending the suit Ragland as purchaser and Ragland as treasurer and Stickney as manager of the team of ball players of the Montgomery Base Ball Association from using its franchise with right of membership in the Southern Association of Base Ball Clubs and any of its property for the purpose of playing any games of ball in the name of any person or corporation, or for the use of any person or corporation, except in the name of and for the use of the Montgomery Base Ball Association. Under the opinion on the present appeal it is unnecessary to set out the averments of the bill. There was a motion made to dismiss the bill for the want of equity. The respondents also moved to dissolve the injunction for the want of equity in the bill. The respondents also demurred to the bill upon several grounds. After the filing of this motion and the demurrer, the complainants amended the bill by adding just after the name Robertson and the statement of the case the following words: "In his own behalf and in behalf of all other shareholders owning shares of stock, similarly situated to him;" and also amended said bill by adding the same words between the word "Robertson" and the word "respectively" where said words occur in the first line of paragraph 1. This amendment was made on April 13 1904. The respondents also demurred to the bill as amended. On the submission of the cause upon the motions to dismiss the bill and to dissolve the injunction for the want of equity and upon the demurrers to the bill as amended the chancellor rendered the following decree: "This cause is submitted at the present term of said court on the motions to dismiss the bill for a want of equity, and to dissolve the injunction for want of equity in the bill on the demurrers to the bill and motion to increase the penalty of the injunction bond. On consideration it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity is well made and is sustained, and unless complainant amends the bill so as to give it equity in two days after the enrollment of this decree the bill shall stand dismissed. It is further decreed that the filing of the amendment by complainant on April 13, 1904, operated a dissolution of the injunction, and therefore the motion now made to dissolve the injunction is not considered. As this disposes of the bill, the demurrers thereto will not be considered." This decree was rendered on April 16, 1904. On April 18, 1904, the complainant amended the bill. The respondents moved to strike the proposed amendment upon the ground that the same does not give the bill equity. The complainant filed a petition asking to reinstate the injunction upon the...