The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-06-06
Washington Star. }

Washington Star
In the Supreme Court Justice Gray an
nounced the decision OF the court in the
case of Henry Hilton and others against
Guyot, liquidator of the estate of Fo-tin
& Company, 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
Justice Gray also announced the decis-
ion in the case of Samuel J. Ritchie
against James B. McMullen and George
W. McMullen in error from the circuit
court of the northern district of Ohio
This involved the same questions as the
Hilton case, except that the Judgment
which it was sought to have affirmed was
rendered by Canadian court.
| The case of Hilton and Libbey against
Guyot involved the validity of judgments
rendered by foreign courts against Amer
lean citizens and it is understood that
large number of claims of character
similar to that prosecuted by Guyot, in
volving 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 1884, but no conclusion was
announced by the court prior to the adj
| journment of that term, and it has re-
manned undecided through this term and
| until now
Guyot appears in the case as the lioui-
dator of the French tlrm of Charles For
tin & Co, formerly glove manufacturers
of Paris, and Messrs. Hilton and Libbey,
as the successors of A. 1. Stewart g. Co.
of New York.
The history of the case goes back to 1880
and that of the transaction on which it
is based to 1850, when the house Of Stew
art q Co. entered upon an agreement
with one Alexandra, the predecessor of
Forth & Co., to take from the French
| house all the gloves manufactured by
them for the American market the two
establishments to share both the profit
and the loss of the business.
| In 1880 this agreement was brought to
a close by "a misunderstanding and
mutual charges of bad faith. The French
| firm brought suit in the tribunal of com
merce of the Seine, where the case was
decided in favor of Forth & Co., and
from which decision it was appealed by
| Stewart & Co., to the Paris court of ap-
1
onistic to Stewart & Co., the final judg-
ment in the French courts fixing the
amount of the indebtedness of the New
York house to the French firms at S195, 122
with interest.
Before the final decree was announced
Stewart & Co. closed their Paris estab-
lishment, and, being unable to collect the
| amount of the Judgment in France,
| Forth & Co., in 1889, brought suit in
| the United States circuit court for the
southern district of New York to compel
collection on the French Judgment The
defendants filed a bill of discovery 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
findings of the French courts.
The case was appealed to the United
States Supreme Court in 1890