The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-06-04
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Litigation In the Case of Hilton
Versus GuyOt
VICTORY FOR THE FORMER.
The Matter Decides the Value of Judg-
ments Obtained Against Americans
In Foreign Courts-History of
the Celebrated Case.

WASHINGTON, June 5. In bne supreme
court today Justice Gray announced the
decision Of the court in the case Of Henry
Hilton and others versus Guyot liquidator
of the estate of Fortine & Co., involving
the validity of foreign judgments, revers-
ing the decision of the court below and re-
manding the case for trial in the circuit
court of the southern district of New
York Chief Justice Fuller and Justices
Harlan, Brewer and Jackson dssented.
the court then standing TO T. the major
ity being Gray, Field, Brown, Shiras and
White Justice Gray also announced the
deci sion in the Ritohie case affirming the
decision of the court below.
The case Of Hilton and Libbey versus
Guyot involved the validity of judgments
rendered by foreign courts against Ameri-
can citizens and 1t Is understood that a
large number of claims of character sim
liar to that prosecuted by Guyot, involving
many millions of dollars in amount have
been held in allegiance until the conclusion
of the court in this case should be made
known. The case does not properly belong
to the present term of the court. 1t was
twice argued during the term Of 1894
but no conclusion was announced by the
court prior to the adjournment of that
term and it has remained undecided
through this term and until today.
Guyot appears in the case as the liqui-
dator Of the French firm Of Charles Fortine
s. Co., formerly glove manufacturers of
| Paris, and Messrs Hilton & Libbey as the
| successors Of A. T. Stewart & Co. Of New
| York.
| History of the Case.
The history of the case goes back TO
| 1890 and that of the transactions on which
| it is based to 1850, when the house of
~
with one Alexandra, tho predecessor of
| Fortine & Co, to take from the French
| house all the gloves manufactured by them
| for the American market, the two estab-
| lisbments to share both the profit and the
loss of the business. In 1880 this agree
ment was brought to a close by q misun-
| derstanding and mutual charges of bad
| faith. The French firm brought suit in
the tribunal of commerce of the Seine,
| when the case was decided in favor of
! FoFtine & Co., and from which decision 1t
was appealed by Stewart & Co. to the
| Paris court of appeals, when the decision
was also antagonistio to Stewart 81 Co.,
| the final Judgment In the French courts
fixing the amount Of the indebtedness of
the New York house to the French firm
at S195, 1872, with interest
Before the final decree was announced
] CGbWhIb q w. JlOsbu 0uOlI L aLlo Obuthb-
lishment, and being unable to collect the
amount of the Judgment in France For
tine & Co., III 1889, brought suit in the
United States circuit court for the south
ern district of New York TO compel oolleo-
tion on the French Judgment The de-
fendants filed bill Of discovery alleging
counter claims and asserting that the
Judgment of the French court was re-ex-
aminable. The decision was rendered by
Judge Wallace of the circuit court. He
dismissed the bill of discovery and ordered
that Stewart & Co should pay the judg-
ment as in accordance with the finding Of
the French courts. The case was appealed
to the United States supreme court in
1890.
The case of Samuel J. Ritohie versus
James B. McMullin and George W. Mo
Mullin, in error from the circuit court Of
the northern district of Ohio involved the
same questions as the Hilton case except
that the Judgment which it was sought to
have affirmed was rendered by Canadian
| court