Clipping:The outcome of the Lehane case
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Friday, March 14, 1890 |
|---|---|
| Text | [the statement from Rogers] It was in evidence that the Buffalo Club, through their agent, Mr. Robert Laidley, authorized Mr. Buckenberger of the Buffalo Club [sic: should be Columbus Club] on Jan. 23, 1889, to negotiate with Mr. Lehane, a player reserved by the said Buffalo Club. Mr. Buckenberger said he would pay in salary and release money a certain sum, and on Jan. 27 made a personal agreement with Lehane to play in Columbus under a regular Association contract, to be signed on or before Feb. 15, 1890, if legally authorized to contract with the Columbus Club at that date. No release was given to Lehane by the buffalo Club until Feb. 4, 1890, after which date Lehane refused to comply with his personal agreement, and subsequently signed a regular contract with the New York Club. The Board held that under their former precedents the contract of Jan. 27 would be invalid because it preceded instead of following the release of Feb. 4, but outside of such precedents there was a moral obligation upon Lehane to have complied with his personal agreement and to have signed a regular contract, and if Mr. Day would waive claim to Lehane the Board would prefer to enforce such obligation as far as it was in their power to do by recognizing the subsequent release of Feb. 4, 1890, as a ratification of the authority of Jan. 23, to negotiate, and the personal contract of Jan. 27. Mr. Day, therefore, declare that in view of the Board's decision affirming his position under base ball rules, he would waive all further claims on the player. |
| Source | New York Sun |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />