The record-union., 1895-04-22
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.

The Z. s. Supreme Court VIII Prob
ably Soon Decide Important Gases.
WASHINGTON, April 21.-It is generally
believed that the United Stetes Supreme
Court will, before the adjournment of the
present term, render q decision in the
case involving the validity of foreign
judgments in courts OF this country. Bar
ring the question of a rehearinl: in the
income tax cases. this is probubly the
most important matter before th o court,
and the fact that notwithstand ing the
cases were argued during the .erms of
1893 and 1894 and still are unreu dered. it
would appear to indicate that t. 10 mem
bers of the court have encounter ed diff
Guilty in dealing with them. ] here are
two of these cases, but the points involved
are so much alike that decisI on in one
will in all probability be equal TO deci-
sion in the other.
The first of the cases is that O Samuel
j. Richie VS.. James w. McMu Hin, and
IL IS an appeal from the decisio q of the
United States Circuit Court tor tn g North
ern District Of Ohio, affirming the judg-
ment of Canadian court in MclhuIlin's
behalf against Richie.
The second Is that of Henry Hilton et
al. vs.. Gustav B. Guyot, from the United
States Circuit Court for the Southern Dis
trict Of New York, affirming a decision
Ss9 d1bSG 1lIAlOl q lJlDD0J, iBQCC6SSO rs TO
A. 1. SteWa art IL Co., for the sum of S'2SO,-
So. In the latter case Guyot appears as
the official iquidator of the affairs of the
firm OF Charles Eortiu 81 Co., gl owe
manufacturers of Paris. 1t appears that
in 1866 Stewart G Co. entered into an
agreement with Forth q. Co. to sell in
this country all the gloves this French
firm could manufacture and to divide TIE
profits equally. In 1879 there was disa-
greement, and the French firm sued the
New York house in the Tribunal of Conn
merce OF Paris and obtained Judgment.
The case was appealed to the Paris Court
of Appeals, but the Judgment was
affirmed. In the meantime Stewart 81
Co., had closed the house which they had
hitherto maintained in Paris and sold
their property there. The Paris firm then
entered suit in the Federal Circuit Court
of New York, and asked for the execu-
ton Of the decree OF the French courts,
maintaining the sufficiency of the judp-
ments of the foreign courts.
The Circuit Judge gave a judgment for
the full amount Hilton & Libbey, as the
successors of Stewart IL Co., then brought
the case to the Supreme Court of the
United states, where it was twice argued
for Guyot by Messrs. William q. Choate
and William d. Chipman and by Messrs.
J. G. Carter and Elihu Root for Hilton q
Libbey.
Enormous interests are involved in the
decision. 1t is said judgments to the
amount OF Sl6,OO0,OOO have been rendered
IN the Canadian courts alone against the
American citizens, the validity of which
depends upon the decisions in these cases. |
The lawyers agree that there is scarcely |
any doctrine of law which, so far as re- |
CARDS formal and exact statement. is in a |
more uncertain condition than that relat-
ing to the force and effect of the iude- |
ments of the courts rendered in one ma |
tiOu Dy the courts of anOthar MANY do
cisions have been rendered in England. |
but they appear to have left the question |
in an involved and confused condition.
Messrs. Carter and Root laid down the |
proposition in their argument on the |
Hilton case that the question of the con-
clusiveness OF foreign judgment de- !
pends upon the circumstances under |
which it was rendered, and where it was |
not so conclusive as to preclude inquiry |
into the original merits of the contro- !
versy, when tho State is under It's ordi- |
nary obligation to the party demanding |
the inquiry, TO give him at least one full !
and fair opportunity of having his case |
adjudicated upon its original merits |
This opportunity, they claim, was de- |
MED them in this case
1t is understood decision has been !
reached by the court in the case, but it is |
not known whether the opinion of the |
court has been prepared or when it will |
be handed down. 1t is not considered |
probable, however, that the court will |
again allow the matter to go over through |
a recess.