batting average, .342 on-base percentage and 1.6 WAR rating. The Superbas remained competitive, finishing in third place with a 79–57 record. Challenging the "reserve clause" In March 1902, McGuire jumped to the still new American League, signing a two-year with the Detroit Tigers. The Brooklyn club sued McGuire for breaching his contract to play there and sought an injunction prohibiting him from playing anywhere else. The case went to trial in June 1902 in Philadelphia federal court. Brooklyn club president Charles Ebbets testified in court "to the extraordinary qualities of McGuire as a catcher." McGuire argued that his contract with Brooklyn was invalid on the ground that the "reserve clause" was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. After hearing the evidence, Judge George M. Dallas ruled in favor of McGuire, holding that the Brooklyn contract was unenforceable due to a lack of mutuality, and because Brooklyn had failed to prove that McGuire's services were unique and irreplaceable. Judge Dallas' opinion, in part, stated:"The contract upon which this suit is founded provides that the party of the first part (the plaintiff) may end and determine all its liabilities and obligations thereunder upon giving the party of the second part (the defendant) ten days' notice of its option and intention to do so, and in Marble Company vs. Itipley, 10 Wall. 339, it was distinctly held that a contract which the plaintiff may abandon at any time on giving one year's notice is not enforceable in equity.... In short, I am of opinion that the decision in Marble Company against Ripley is binding upon this Court and is determinative of the present motion. A preliminary injunction should not be awarded in any case where the proofs leave the mind of the Court in serious doubt respecting the plaintiff's asserted right, and the testimony and affidavits submitted for and against the present application do not establish with reasonable certainty that the breach of contract of which the plaintiff complains could not be adequately compensated at law. The evidence adduced is by no means conclusive upon the question whether the services which the defendant contracted to render were so unique and peculiar that they could not be performed and substantially as well by others engaged in professional ball playing, who might be easily be obtained to take his place. The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied." The Brooklyn correspondent for The Sporting