Morning journal and courier., 1894-01-15
AN IMPORTANT CASE.

T. | The Effect of Foreign Judgment- Judge George w. Wheeler Files .
 Notable opinion in . Suit Between
 Residents of England and q Resi"
 dent of Connecticut. Ia
 Judge George ". Wheelsr, now holding | the superior court in this city, rendered on Saturday a very important decision in . case pending in the superior court for Hartford county. -~
 About . year ago Attorney Livingston W. Cleaveland of this city, acting for the firm of Fisher, Brown & Go. of Birming- ham, England, brought suit in the superior court in Hartford county against William 8. Fielding, a spring bed manufacturer of New Britain, in this state, on a foreign | tu 1Rment for two hundred and ninety ! eight pounds seventeen shillings and three | pence t$1, ,45o.04,) recovered by the plain l tiffs, Fisher, Brown & Co., against the de- fendant, William 8. Fielding, April 8, 1889, in the high court of justice, queens bench division, Birmingham, district reg ist.y, at Birmingham, England.
 The defendant pleaded a general denial and also several special defenses, alleging in these special defenses, among other mat ters, that he was a citizen of the United States and had never been 6 resident of Great Britain or owed any allegiance to Queen Victoria; that while he was tempor- arily in England the plaintiffs had caused papers to be served npon him, summontng him to appear in court. but that he made no appearance either in person or by at torney, but immediately returned to this country; that he did not owe the plaintiffs anything and that any claim the plaintiffs had, if any, in which the defendant was in any way interested, was claim not against him personally, but against the National Wire Mattress company, a corporation Of which he was merely president, and that the process in the suit was served upon the defendant for the purpose of embarrassing and impeding him and preventing his hay ing fair trial unless he indefinitely pro- longsd his stay abroad.
 To these special defenses the plaintiffs demurrsd, chiefly on the ground that the defendant having been duly summoned while in the foreign jurisdiction should have made his defense there, especially ss the defendant did not allege that he had been fraudulently enticed into the foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of there serv- ing process on him; in other words the plaintiffs claimed, by their demurrer to the
 
 in our courts what is called ''debt on jodg- ment," that that judgment was conclusive and the merits of the original causs of action could not now be enquired into here any more than they could If ths judgment had been procured in domestic court in stead of foreign court. The defendant practically conceded that the case could l not be re-tried here if the defendant had actually appeared in the foreign court and tried the case there, but claimed that the mere service of process upon him while transiently in the foreign country, without | appearance in court there, did not give the | as would preclude an investigation into the l merits of the case upon a suit brought here l upon the foreign judgment.
 The issue raised by this answer and de- l murrer was an important one, not only be- | cause it involved questions of comity be- 1 tween nations, but because that, while the I genera! question of the effect of foreign l judgment has received extended consider
 ation in the higher courts of England and
 America, the precise question arising
 in this case has never been de-
 cided by the courts of last resort in this country. Judge Wallace in | the case of Hilton vs. Guyott, decided as late as 1891 in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New l York, after reafirmtng the modern doc l Urine of tho absolute eonclcsivsness of Q
 foreign judgment, where the defendant
 actually appeared in the foreign court, ex- pressly stated thst 1t was not necessary in
 that case to decide whether a foreign judg- l ment against one of our own citizens,
 served with process while casually within
 the country of the judgment, and who did
 not appear to defend, Is, or not re-exam- 1 inable in a suit brought upon 1t here:- The
 question left undecided by Judge Wa lace
 was the precise question raised by the
 pleadings in this case of Fisher, Brown &
 Go. vs. Fielding.
 The demurrer in this case was argued
 before Judge Wheeler in Hartford last Oc-
 tober. Attorneys Henry G. Newton and
 Livingston W. Cleaveland of this city re-
 presenting the plaintiffs and Attorney F. l.. Hungerford of Mitchell, Hungerford &
 Bartlett of New Britain, representing the
 defendant. In view of the importance Of
 the principles involved and the fact that
 the particular phase raised by this demur.
 Ter has never been directly decided in thia
 country J Judge Wheeler male an exhaustive
 examination of the authorities and in q
 very able opinion of fully ten thousand
 words, sustains the plaintiffs demurrer
 ion can do, establishes for Connecticut the
 doctrine that a judgment fairly obtained in
 foreign country stands on an equal foot
 ing with 8 judgment obtained in this state
 and cannot be retried here on the merits
 even if the defendant did not appear in thu
 foreign country as long as he had service