The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-04
Important Ruling of the Su-
preme Court in the Hill
ton Case.
REvERSEs THE LOWER COURT.
Judgments of Countries Not Recog-
nlzing the Rule of Comfy
Garry No Weight.

supreme court To-Day Judge Urdy an
nounced decision in the case of Henry
Hilton and others VS.. Guyet, iquidator of
the estate of Forth & Co., involving the
validity of foreign judgments reversing 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 majority being Gray,
Field, Brown, Shiras and White.
Justice Gray's opinion was very brief
and delivered so indistinctly that it was
impossible to catch his language. The de-
cision was a denial of the validity of the
judgments of countries which do not re-
cognize the rule of international comfy in
such matters. The rule of comfy,
said Justice Gray, is recognized by some of
the foreign countries, including Greece
and Portugal, but it is not in force in the
French courts. He made this refusal of
the French courts to recognize the judg-
ments of courts of other countries the
basis of his opinion that a judgment in
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.
The case of Hilton & Libbey VS.. Guyot
| involved the validity of judgments rem
dered by foreign courts against American
citizens, and it is understood that large
number of claims of a character similar to
that prosecuted by Guyot involving
many millions of dollars in amount,
have been held IN allegiance until the con-
clusion of the court in this case should be
made known. The case does not properly
belong to the present term of the court.
It was twice argued during the term of
| 1893-94, but no conclusion was announced
by the court prior to adjournment of that
term, and it has remained undecided
through this term and until to-day.
Guyot appears in the case as the
liquidator of the French firm of Charles
Forth & Co., formerly glove manufactur-
ers of Paris, and Messrs. Hilton & Dibbey,
New York. The history of the case
goes back to 1880, and that of
the transactions on which it
| is based to 1850, when the house of Stew
ART & Co. entered on an agreement with
one Alexandra, the predecessor of Forth
& Co., to take from the French house all
!
American market, the two establishments
to share both the profit and loss of the
| business.
| In 1880 this agreement was brought to a
close by misunderstanding and mutual
charges OF bad faith. The French firm
brought suit in the Tribunal of Commerce
of the Seine, when the case was de-
cided in favor of Forth & Co.,
and from which decision it was
appealed by Stewart g. Co. to the Paris
Court of Appeals, where the decision was
as antagonistlc to Stewart & Co., the final
| Judgment in the French courts fixing the
amount of Indebtedness of the house to the
French house at $195, 122, with interest.
Before the final decree was announced
Stewart & Co. closed their Paris establish
ment, and being unable to collect the
amount of the Judgment in France Forth
& Co., in 1885, brought suit in the United
| States Court for the Southern District
of New York to compel collec-
ton on the French judgment, alleg-
ing 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
that Stewart & Co. should pay the judg-
ment 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. Richie Vs. James
B. McMullin and George w. McMullin, in
error from the court of the Northwestern
District of Ohio, involved the same cues
tons as the Hilton case, except that the
judgment which it was sought to have
affirmed was rendered by a Canadian
court. In this case there were three ques-
tons certified from the United States Cir
cult 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 1, $780, should be
maintained, Notwithstanding the pro-
visions of the tariff act of August %, 1894,
and was answered in the affirmative. The
second-should merchandise entered be-
tween August 1 and August %, 1894, be
assessed for duty under paragraph 276,
schedule J, of the tariff act of 1S94?-was
answered in the negative.
The third section was whether the rates
of duty prescribed by the first section of
the tariff act of 1894 (unless otherwise pro-
vided in the act) should be levied col
lected and paid on all articles imported
from foreign countries or withdrawn from
consumption on and after August 1, 1894,
and prior to August % of the same year;
but Chief Justice Fuller, who delivered
the opinion of the court, in brief said the
case was so indefinite that the court would
not enter into it.
Justice CIR ay also announced decision
in the Richie case confirming the decis-
ion of the court below. This was the case
involving the validity of the Judgment of
the Canadian court
Chief Justice Fuller handed down an
opinion in the case of the United States VS..
Burr d Hardwick. involving the date when
the present tariff law went into effect.
The decision was that this did not occur
until August %, 1894, when the bill became
law, notwithstanding the law itself fixed
the date as August l. The case was re-
garded by the Government as one of great
Importance, and by special arrangement
1t was advanced to a speedy hearing.