Weegham v. Killefer
Decision Date | 10 April 1914 |
Parties | WEEGHAM et al. v. KILLEFER et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Matson Gates & Ross, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Winston, Payne Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago, Ill. (Kleinhans, Knappen & Hull of Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel), for complainants.
Stevenson Carpenter, Butzel & Backus, of Detroit, Mich., and Samuel M. Clement, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa. (George Wharton Pepper, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for defendants.
This record shows that the defendant, Killefer, is a baseball player of unique, exceptional, and extraordinary skill and expertness. Unfortunately, the record also shows that he is a person upon whose pledged word little or no reliance can be placed, and who, for gain to himself, neither scruples nor hesitates to disregard and violate his express engagements and agreements. His repudiation of one contract, for the making of which he had been paid several hundred dollars, and his breach of another contract, entered into after at least a week's consideration and deliberation, give rise to the present controversy. Viewed from the standpoint of common honesty and integrity, his position in this litigation is not an enviable one.
In April, 1913, defendant Killefer entered into a written contract with the Philadelphia Ball Company (now Philadelphia National League Club) by the terms of which he bound himself to perform for the Ball Company the services of a professional baseball player during the season of 1913. Three clauses of that contract are of a special importance here:
After the close of the season of 1913, and before the first of the next year, the Philadelphia Club notified Killefer that it desired his services for another year, and would pay him an increased salary, and thereupon he again promised and agreed to play with that club during the season of 1914. Notwithstanding these agreements with the Philadelphia Club, he, upon the solicitation and at the request of the plaintiffs, entered into negotiations with the latter which, on the 8th day of January, 1914, resulted in the execution of a written contract, by the terms of which he agreed to play baseball for and with the Chicago Federal League Club, during the three seasons of 1914, 1915, and 1916, at a salary of $5,833.33 per season. At the time of the execution of this contract, plaintiffs and their manager had knowledge of Killefer's previous contract with the Philadelphia Club, and were acquainted with its provisions. Twelve days later and on January 20, 1914, Killefer executed another contract with the defendant Philadelphia National League Club, by the terms of which he agreed to play baseball for and with that club during the three seasons of 1914, 1915, and 1916, at a salary of $6,500 per annum. Since the execution of the last-mentioned contract, Killefer has entered upon its performance and intends to continue to play with the Philadelphia Club unless he is restrained from so doing. In this proceeding, plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining him from playing with any baseball team or club other than their own.
The parties concede and the authorities sustain the jurisdiction of a court of equity in a suit of this character. That the contracts of January 8th and January 20th are, in form, valid and binding upon the parties thereto must also be conceded. Therefore the 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 player for the succeeding season, valid and enforceable? and, second, are the plaintiffs by their own conduct barred from seeking relief in a 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 their breach. The reasons for the decisions are that such contracts are lacking in the necessary qualities of definiteness, certainty, and mutuality. The 1913 contract between these defendants relative to the reservation of the defendant Killefer for the season of 1914, is lacking in all of these essential elements. It is wholly uncertain and indefinite with respect to salary and also with respect to terms and conditions of the proposed employment. It is nothing more than a contract to enter into a contract, in the future, if the parties can then agree to contract. Although it is founded upon sufficient consideration, it lacks mutuality, because the Philadelphia Club may terminate it at any time upon 10 days' notice while the other party has no such option and is bound during the entire contract period. A contract exists, but, if broken by either party, the other is remediless, because the courts are helpless either to enforce its performance or to award damages for its breach. Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing, 42 F. 198, 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp., 266.
...is reserved for future agreement of the parties, no legal obligation arises until such future agreement is concluded. Weegham v. Killefer (D. C. Mich.) 215 F. 168, 170; Speirs v. Union Drop Forge Co., 180 Mass. 87, 61 N. E. 825; Williston on Contracts, vol. 1, § An executory contract to sel......
-
Dale v. Jennings
...of trickery, or taking undue advantage of his position, or unconscientious conduct.' Harton v. Little, 188 Ala. 640, 65 S. 951; Weegham v. Killefer, 215 F. 168; Bentley Tibbals, 223 F. 247, 138 C. C. A. 489; Kenyon v. Weissberg (D. C.) 240 F. 536; Langley v. Devlin, 95 Wash. 171, 163 P. 395......
-
Electrical Research Products, Inc. v. The Vitaphone Corp.
... ... himself been guilty of unconscionable conduct." ... Precisely ... the same thought was, also, expressed in Weegham v ... Killefer , ( D. C. ) 215 F. 168, 171, to the ... effect that "any willful act in regard to the matter in ... litigation, which would be ... ...
-
Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.
...the law will not make a contract for them and bind them to the terms thus made. Butler v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 242, 67 A. 332; Weegham v. Killefer (D. C.) 215 F. 168; Mayer v. McCreery, 119 N. Y. 434, 23 N. E. 1045; Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50, 28 N. W. 796, 4 Am. St. Rep. 814; Sun Printi......