▁of ▁Mc Gu ire ▁as ▁a ▁catch er ." ▁Mc Gu ire ▁argued ▁that ▁his ▁contract ▁with ▁Brook lyn ▁was ▁invalid ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁the ▁" res erve ▁clause " ▁was ▁a ▁viol ation ▁of ▁the ▁Sh erman ▁Anti - Tr ust ▁Act . ▁ ▁After ▁hearing ▁the ▁evidence , ▁Judge ▁George ▁M . ▁Dallas ▁ruled ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁Mc Gu ire , ▁holding ▁that ▁the ▁Brook lyn ▁contract ▁was ▁un en force able ▁due ▁to ▁a ▁lack ▁of ▁mut ual ity , ▁and ▁because ▁Brook lyn ▁had ▁failed ▁to ▁prove ▁that ▁Mc Gu ire ' s ▁services ▁were ▁unique ▁and ▁ir replace able . ▁ ▁Judge ▁Dallas ' ▁opinion , ▁in ▁part , ▁stated :" The ▁contract ▁upon ▁which ▁this ▁suit ▁is ▁founded ▁provides ▁that ▁the ▁party ▁of ▁the ▁first ▁part ▁( the ▁pla int iff ) ▁may ▁end ▁and ▁determine ▁all ▁its ▁li abilities ▁and ▁oblig ations ▁there under ▁upon ▁giving ▁the ▁party ▁of ▁the ▁second ▁part ▁( the ▁def endant ) ▁ten ▁days ' ▁notice ▁of ▁its ▁option ▁and ▁intention ▁to ▁do ▁so , ▁and ▁in ▁Mar ble ▁Company ▁vs . ▁It i ple y , ▁ 1 0 ▁Wall . ▁ 3 3 9 , ▁it ▁was ▁distinct ly ▁held ▁that ▁a ▁contract ▁which ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁may ▁abandon ▁at ▁any ▁time ▁on ▁giving ▁one ▁year ' s ▁notice ▁is ▁not ▁en force able ▁in ▁equ ity .... ▁In ▁short , ▁I ▁am ▁of ▁opinion ▁that ▁the ▁decision ▁in ▁Mar ble ▁Company ▁against ▁Ri ple y ▁is