The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-06-06
THE j, S. SUPREM COUR'
HANDS DOWN A MOST IMPORT
ANT DECISION BEFORE CLOS
ING THE TERM
THE COURT STOOD FIVE TO FOUR
ON AN INTERNATIONAL
QUESTION.
The Decision Was Based on the Denial
of the Validity of Judgment of
Countries Not Recognizing the
Rule of International Comfy
In Such Matters.

| of the United States adjourned today
until the second Monday in October.
Thirty7fou cases which have been argued
were left undecided. Justice Gray an
nounced the decision of the court in the
case of Henry Haltgen and others VS..
Guyot, liquidatOr of the estate of FOrtine
IL 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 South
ern district of New York Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer and
Jackson dissented, the court then stand
ing five to four, the majority being Gray,
Field, Brown, Shras and White.
The case involved the validity of judg-
ments rendered by foreign courts against
American citizens, and it is understood
that large number of claims of a char
acter similar to that prosecuted by Guyot,
involving many millions of dollars in
amount, have been theld in allegiance
until the conclusion of the court in this
case should be known. The case does
not properly belong to the present term
of court. 1t was twice argued during
the term of 1S93-94, but no conclusion
W
Judgment of that term, and it has re-
manned undecided through this term until
today. Guyot appears IN the case as
the liqudator of the French firm of Chas.
Fortine & Co., formerly glove manu-
facturers of Faris, and Messrs. Hilton
Il Libbey as the successors of A. Il.
Stewart & Co. of New York. The his
tory of the case goes back to 1880, and
that of the transaction of which it was
based to 1850 when the house of Stewart
& Co. entered upon an agreement with
one Alexander, the predecessor of Fortne
& Co., to take from the French house
all the gloves manufactured by them for
the American market, the two estab-
lishments to share both profit and loss
of the business. In 1880, this agreement
was brought to an end by a misunder-
standing and mutual charges. The
French firm brought suit in the tribunal
of commerce of the Seine, when the suit
was decided in favor of Fortine e Co.,
and from which decision it was appealed
by Stewart e Co. 10 the French court
of appeals, where the decision was also
antagonistic to Stewart & Co., the final
Judgment in the French court fixing the
amount of the indebtedness of the New
York firm to the French firm at $780,
122 with interest. Before a final decree
was announced, Stewart & Co. closed their
Paris establishment, and being unable 10
collect the amount of the judgment in
France, Fortine & Co., in 1870, brought
suit in the United States circuit court, for
the Southern district of New York, to
compel the collection. The defendants
filed 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 dis
missed 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 supreme court in 1890.
The case of Samuel ]. Richie VS.. Jas.
B. McMullin and George McMullin, in
error, from the court in the Northern dis
trict of Ohio, involved the same ques-
tons as the Hilton case, except that the
judgment, which it was sought to have af-
firmed. was rendered by Canadian court.
Justice Gray's opinion was very brief.
The decision was denial of the validity
of the Judgment of countries which do
not recognize the rule of international
| comfy in such matters. The rule of
comfy, Justice Gray said, was recognized
by some foreign countries, including
Greece and Portugal, but it was not in
force in the French courts. He made
this refusal of the French courts to rec
ognize the judgments of the 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 Harlan, Brew
er and Jackson, who dissented did not
announce their reasons.
In the Richie case, in error, to the
circuit court of the Northern district
| of Ohio, involving a Canadian judgment,
there was no allegation of fraud, but
! only an error on the part of the court.
, Justice Gray said this was not sufficient
foundation for a review, and affirmed the
decision of the court below, which held
! the Canadian judgment to be valid.
Chief Justice Fuller handed the opin-
| ion of the court in the case of the United
States VS.. Burr and Hardwick involving
! the date when the present tariff law went
into effect. The decision that this could
| not occur until August IA, 1894, when the
bill became a law, notwithstanding the
, law itself fixed the dates August 1. The
case was regarded by the government as
one of great Importance, and by special
arrangement, was advanced to speedy
| hearing. The government won.
/ Chief Justice Fuller also announced thai
the court had decided to grant the appli
cation of Constable Beach in the Soutf
Carolina dispensary law case for leave
to file a motion for habeas corpus. The
/ case was set for hearing on the first Mon
day of the next term of court. 80,