The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-22

Washington CITY. April s1-It Is xsner-
aiiy believed the United States supreme
court wtsI. before the adJouFunleat of ths
present term. reader decision in case
involving the validity OF foreign iuds-
ments in courts ~ this country Barring
the question " a reheariaS ln the Income
tax cases. this Is probably the most .In-
portant matter now before The t>ouFt. and
the fact that. Notwithstanding tae cases
were argued during the terms of tSas-es.
they are stil undecided. would appear 10
Indicate that the members OF the conrt
have encountered difficulty in dealing
with them. There are two of these cases.
hut she points involved are 50 much alIks
that a decision in one viii la all prois-
ability D. equal u decision Ia the other.
The FIRST OF the cases is THAI Or Samuel
J. RitChis vS. James ". McMullln. a ad IL
Is an appeal from the decision OF tho
United Stans circuit court for the North-
ern DISTRICT Of ohio. affirming The judy.
ment of a Canadian court in McMuliins
behalf against FitChie. The second IS that
Of Henry Hilton et al vs Gustav y.
Guyot, from the United states circuit
court for the Southern district az New
York. affirming a decision against Hilton
q Lihbey. successors TO \. T. Stewart sS
Co. for tho sum OF s2Sp So. la Che latter
case Guyot appears as the official ltqui-
dator Of the affairs Of the arm OF CsIar4es
Forth & Co, glove manufacturers Of
Paris.
II appears that in 1850 Stewart & Co,
entered into an agreement With k'orf1n Sc
CO. 20 sell ia this country ali thr gloves
the French firm could manufacture. and
70 divide the profits equally. In lST. there
Was q disagreement. and the French firm
sued the New York house in the tribunal
OF commerce of Paris and obtained a
Judgment. The case was appealed 20 tha
Paris court of appeals. but the Judgment
was affirmed. In the meantirae Stewart
& co. had closed the house which they
had hitherto maintained in Paris. and
sold their properly there. The Paris firm
then entered suit In the Federal clrcuis
court Of New York and asked for the exa
ecufion Of the decree OF the French
courts, maintaining the sufiicieucy of tho
judgments OF the foreign courts. Tho
circuit court gave a Judgment for the full
amount Hilton & Lfhhey. as the sue
cessor Of Stewart a Co. then brought
the case 10 the supreme court Of tho
United States. where II was twice argued
for Guyot by Messrs William g. Chuata
and William D. Chipman and hy Messrs.
J. g. Carter and Elihu Root for Hilton 8
Libbey.
Enormous interests are involved in the
decision. 1t is said judgments TO the
amount of sis001.0oo have been rendered
In the Canadian courts alone against
American citizens. the validity Of which
depend upon the decisions In these cases.
I6e lawyers agree that there tS scarcely
any doctrine or law which. far as re-
CARDS a formal and exact statement. is
In a more uncertain condition than that
relating 20 the force and effect Of tudg-
meuts rendered in one nation 10y the
courts Of another. Many decisions have
heen rendered IN England. but they ap-
pear 70 have left the question Ia an in
VOWED and confused condition. Messrs.
Carter and Root laid down the proposi.
ton in their arguments on the Hilton case
that the question Of the couclusiveness oe
a foreign Judgment depends upon the cir
cumstauces under which II was rendered.
and where Il was not 80 conclusive "a 10
preclude inquiry into the original mcrits
OF the controversy then the state - un-
der It's ordinary obligation 20 the party
demanding the inquiry. TO give him al
least one fun and fair opportunity % hav-
ing his cause adiudicated upon is original
merits. This opportunity. they claim. was
denied them in this case.
T. "a understood decision has been
reached by The court in tho case. but 10
Is not known whether the opinion OF ths
court has been prepared or when II viii
be handed down. 1t is not considered
probable. however. that the court VIII
again allow the matter 10 90 over through
a recess