51 A. 973 (1902)
The player had contracted to serve the baseball club as a baseball player for a stipulated time. During that period he was not to play for any other club. He violated his agreement, however, during the term of his engagement when, in disregard of his contract, he arranged to play for another rival organization. The baseball club by means of the bill sought to restrain him. The trial court refused an injunction, holding that to warrant interference, the player's services had to be unique, extraordinary, and of such a character as to render it impossible to replace him, such that his breach would have resulted in irreparable loss to the baseball club.
- The court reversed, reinstated the bill, and held that where one person agrees to render personal services to another that require and presuppose a special knowledge, skill, and ability in the employee, so that in case of a default the same service could not easily be obtained from others, the damages for breach of such contract could not be estimated with any certainty, and the employer could not, by means of any damages, purchase the same service in the labor market.
The court reversed the judgment from the trial court, which had refused to issue an injunction against the player for breaching his contract and playing for another team, because the baseball club could not, in the labor market, purchase the same service as was provided by the player.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law