The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-03-07
MIR C. r. HUNTING TOW WINS ms SURF.
The Highest Enslish Court Decides In Favor
OF the American.

The Highest Enslish Court Decides In Favor
ofthe American.
An important and nice point Of international
| law, OF great interest to the legal profession
and to business men generally. arising In a
suit by an American citisen against Canadi-
an. which has been successfully befnre the
various courts OF this country and Canada and
before tho highest court OF Great Britain dur
Ing the past nine years. was finally decided by
the judicial committee Of her Majesty's Privy
Council few days ago In favor Of the American.
and Of the Interpretation placed on the point by
the American lawyers. The case was an action
brought by Mr.. Coils p. Huntington
OF this city against Mr.. Henry Y. Attrill.
In the province OF Ontario. Canada, to recover
SlOO.24O. the amount Of q Judgment recovered
by Mr.. Huntington against the respondent in
the Supreme Court OF this city. Tho case was
before the Privy Council on appeal from
Judgment Of the Court OF Appeals OF the
province of Ontario. The case was argued be-
fore the Lord Chancellor Lord Watson. Lord
Bramwell. Lord Hobhouse. Lord Morris. and
Lord Shand by counsel OF great eminence on
both sides-Sir Horace Davoy. .. c.: Mr.. Fin
lay. Q. C.. and Mr.. Pollard for the appellant,
and tho AttorneyG General. Mr.. Gore. and Mr..
Askwith for the respondent.
In June. 1880. Mr.. Huntington loaned a
large sum OF money to the Rockaway Beach
Improvement Company tLimited) Of which Mr.
Attrill was director. Tho company was in
corporated under chapter 81 OF the State laws
Of 1875. Section II of that act provides that
u any certificate or report made. or public
notice given by the officers of any such cor
poration: shall be false In any material repre-;
liable ior, tho, debts 81 the corpor rttaa
e ON 1 Mnt.e ahey ase ofticers there,
with the other officers. setting forth that the
IN sas In H. Seen Paid
tMted suit against Mr.. AttriI before the ,su-
ance Of his loan to the company, alleging that
the se1teatS contained that
personally liable the debt Under ths act Se 81
qasRsst
his l.sI an And IN September 1851 brought
Division of til" High Court Of Justice Tor r' tbs
province OF Ontario. where AttrilI then resided:
me defence offered was that the Judgment |
law Of New Ysrk and hst tGe tno
ton: being Of penal character. ought not to |
swung and balanced for six years. American
n9y On hs
as a criminal 1t is an axiom that the courts Of
nocountry execute tne penal laws OF another"
defence which the Canadian courts uLheid. |
was that the judgment being practically
penalty 1t came under this construction OF in
ternational law.
The action was dismissed by tho Common
Pleas Court. and. by a division. Of two and two
also dismissed by the Court OF Appeals. The
Chief Justice and Justice Osler were OF the
appellant. Mr.. Huntington. as, a creditor Of tho
company, 20 I being civil only aud not enforceable
matter In the sense OF international law. The
The decision handed down by tho Prvy Coun.
I'll is very lengthy document. reviewing
the whole question. with many cases
bearing bearing upon p" 1t. The Council. rep
gives its opinion that the action was not in
The sense of International law, penal, or. in
other words. an action on behalf Of tho Gov
law. and advises her Majesty to
reverse the judgments appealed from and to
Five decree IL favor OF the appellant. Mr.
Mr. Attrii has died since the case was areued
before tho Privy Council
An interesting point; cited by the Lords OF
huntington agt Attrii in this same sI matter
md on the same point Of law. the Court of Ap-
reals OF MARYLAND. by a majority of five Judges
yor a Sts aT r the opposite
erred bill In equity. before the Supreme
Srs Of stock sa by MrAtriI on the alteration that
cnms nnder 1f
nut the Court OF Appeals dismissed tho hi.
olding that the decree. being for a penalty.
New Sss Pat sSe ons 1 s
ented from this decision.