The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-06-04
RULING THEREON MADE BY THE u
S. SUPREME COURT.
The Representative at Washington of
the Colombian Republic Concludes
Not to Present to the State Depart-
ment the Claims of His Government
to the Mosquito Territory. Becom-
ing Satisfied That the Dispute
Nicaragua to Settle.
Special to the REcoRp-UNroy.

| Special to the RECoRD-UNIoN.
| WASHINGTON, June 3.-1n the Supreme
Court to-day, Judge Gray handed down
| a decision in the case of Henry Hilton
and others vs.. Guyet. liquidator of the
estate of Forth ~ Co., involving the
validity of the foreign judgments and re-
versing the decision OF the court below
and remanding the case for trial in the
Circuit Court of the Southern District OF
| New York. Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Jackson
dissented.
! The court stood five to four, the ma
jority being Gray, Field, Brown, Shras
and White. Justice Gray also announced
his decision in the Ritchie case confirm
! ing the decision OF the court below. This
was the case involving the validity of the
judgment OF a Canadian court.
Justice Gray's opinion was very brief,
and delivered SO indistinctly that it was
impossible to catch the language. The
decision was denial OF The judgments of
countries which do not recognize the rule
OF international comfy in such matters.
The rule OF comfy, said Justice Gray, is
| recognized by some OF the foreign coun-
| tries, including Greece and Portugal, but
! is not in force in the French courts. He
made this refusal OF the French courts to
| recognize the judgments OF courts Of
other countries the basis of his opinion
| that a Judgment from the French courts
would not hold in this country.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Har-
Ian. Brewer and Jackson, who disSented,
did not announce their opinions.
In the Ritchie case, in error TO the Cir
cult Court of the Northern District of
Ohio, involving a Canadian judgment,
| there was no allegation OF fraud, bat only
an effort on the part of the court. JUS
| tice cray said this was not sufficient
| foundation for review and affirmed the
decision of the court below, which held
the Canadian judgment to be valid.
| The case of Hilton and Libby VS..
Guyot involved the validity OF iudg-
! mentS rendered by foreign countries
against American citizens, and it is un-
derstOod that large number of claims
of like character are to be prosecuted by
| GuyOt, involving many millions of dol
| lars in amount, but 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 1S93-94, but no
conclusion was announced by the court
prior to adjournment of that term, and it
mas ToDldlneu unueCiOeO through THIS
term and until to-day.
GuyOt appears IN the case as liQuidator
of the French firm OF Charles Forth Il
Co., formerly glove manufacturers of
Paris, and Messrs. Hilton d Libby, as
the successors of A. L. Stewart d Co. of
New York. The history of the case goes
| back to 1880, and that Of the transactions
on which it is based to 1850, when tile
house of Stewart u Co. entered into an
| A oy
decessor of Fortin u Co., to take from
| the French house all the gloves manu-
! tactured by them for the American mar
ket, the two establishments to share both
the profit and loss OF the business. In
| 1880 this agreement was brought to close
! by Misunderstanding and mutual
charges of bad faith. The French firm
brought suit in the Tribunal of Com
merce of the Seine, when the case was
decided in favor of Fortin u Co., and
| from which decision it was appealed by
| Stewart II Co. to the Paris Court of A D.
| peals, where the decision was as antago-
| nlstic to Stewart Il Co., the final iudg-
| ment in the French courts fixing the
amount of Indebtedness OF the house to
| the French house at Sl95, l22, with inter-
| est.
Beforethe final decree was announced
Stewart d Co. closed their Paris estab-
| lishment, and being unable to collect the
amount of the judgment in France,
Forth d Co., in 1859, brought suit in the
United States Court for the Southern
District OF New York, to compel collec-
ton on the French Judgment The de-
| PENDANTS flied a bill OF discovery, alleging
counter claims, and asserting that the
| Judgment of the French court was re-
examinable. The decision was rendered
| by Judge Wallace of the Circuit Court
He dismissed the bill OF discovery, and
ordered Stewart IL Co. to pay the judg-
ment i'll accordance with the finding of
the French courts. The case was ap-
pealed to the United States Supreme
Court in 1890.
The case of Samuel ]. Ritche VS.. Jas.
b. McNulty and George B. McMullin, in
error from the Court of the Northern Dis
trict of Ohio, involved the same ques-
tions as the Hilton case. except the judg-
| ment which it was sought to have
affirmed was rendered by a Canadian
court. In this case there were three
questions certified from the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
The first of these was as to whether the
assessment for duty under paragraph 373
of the Act of October IL, 1890, should be
maintained, Notwithstanding the pro-
visions of the Tariff Act OF August %, 1894,
and was answered in the affirmative.
Inc second, should merchandise en-
tered between August 1st and August %.
1894, be assessed for duty under para
graph 276, schedule ~" OF the Tariff Act
OF 1854, was answered in the negative.
The third question was whether the
| rates of duty prescribed by the first Sec
| ton of the Tariff Act of 1894 unless other
wise provided for in this Act), should be
| levied, collected and paid on all articles
| imported from foreign countries, or with
n ra.rr from cOQSNniDtlOr on and after
August l. 1894, and prior to August 2Stl
of the same year, but Chief Justice
| Fuller, who delivered the opinion OF the
/ court, in brief said the case was so indeti-
/ mite that the court would not enter on it.
! The Supreme Court adjourned to-day
until the second Monday in October.
Thirty -four cases which have been argued
were left undecided.
] An ARGIIHISHQp NEPOSEn.