{
  "id": 2900095,
  "name": "The Cincinnati Exhibition Company, Appellee, v. George H. Johnson, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cincinnati Exhibition Co. v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1914-07-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,600",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "632",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 630"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 Ill. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3385925
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/237/0284-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.067840876229846e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5051271328946205
    },
    "sha256": "56e88320603ec4d2c4048ec3c879550e46a39eca31eb527b7049dca4dcf15a23",
    "simhash": "1:8770ac320a29436e",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Cincinnati Exhibition Company, Appellee, v. George H. Johnson, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Silas H. Strawn, E. E. Gates and R. S. Tuthill, Jr., of counsel.",
      "Chytraus, Healy & Frost, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Cincinnati Exhibition Company, Appellee, v. George H. Johnson, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,600.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nInterlocutory appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court.\nReversed with directions.\nOpinion filed July 17, 1914.\nRehearing denied October 17, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nMotion by George H. Johnson to dissolve an injunction granted on a bill filed by the Cincinnati Exhibition Company, a corporation, to restrain said Johnson from performing or playing baseball for any person or corporation other than the complainant during the season of 1914 and 1915. To reverse an order denying the motion, defendant appeals.\nThe contract contained the following provisions:\n\u201c7. The Club may, at any time after the beginning and prior to the completion of the period of this contract, give the player ten days\u2019 written notice to end and determine all its liabilities and obligations hereunder, in which event the liabilities and obligations undertaken by the Club shall cease and determine at the expiration of said ten days; the player at the expiration of said ten days shall be freed and discharged from all obligation to render service to the Club. If such notice be given to the player while \u2018abroad\u2019 with the Club, he shall be entitled to his traveling expenses, including Pullman accommodations and meals en route to the City of Cincinnati.\n\u201c8. The player agrees to perform for the Club and for no other party during the period of this contract (unless with the written consent of the Club) such duties pertaining to the exhibition of the game of baseball as may be required of him as said Club, at such reasonable times and places as said Club may designate for the National League seasons for the years 1914 and 1915, beginning in April, 1914, and April, 1915, and ending in October, 1914, and October, 1915, unless sooner terminated in accordance with other provisions hereof.\u201d\nThe defendant took a course of .training at the expense of complainant in February and March, 1914, and played with the complainant Club from April 14th to April 20th, and the next day signed a contract to play with a Club of the Federal League, a rival organization.\nThe chief contention of defendant was that because the contract contains a provision that the Club may give the defendant, the player, ten days\u2019 written notice to end and determine all its liabilities under a contract, in which event the liabilities and obligations of the Club shall cease and the player be freed and discharged from all obligation to render service to the Club at the expiration of said ten days, the contract is so wanting in mutuality that defendant, being free from personal bar, could not specifically enforce the covenants of complainant, and the complainant cannot therefore enjoin a breach of a negative covenant of the player Counsel for defendant relied on the case of Ulrey v. Keith, 237 Ill. 284, as decisive in favor of their contention.\nWinston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Silas H. Strawn, E. E. Gates and R. S. Tuthill, Jr., of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nSpecific pebfobmance, \u00a7 11 -\u2014when negative covenant in baseball contract cannot be enforced by injunction. A negative covenant in a baseball player\u2019s contract with a Club not to play or perform for any other than the Club, during the baseball seasons for which he was hired cannot he specifically enforced by an injunction, where there is a want of mutuality of remedy because of a provision in the contract giving the Club the right to terminate the contract by giving the player ten days\u2019 notice.\nMcSurely, J., dissenting.\nChytraus, Healy & Frost, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nThis case was not received by the publishers until February 19, 1915."
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 652,
  "last_page_order": 654
}