Evening star., 1895-06-03
EfGN JUDGMENTS
The Supreme Court Declares Them to Be
Invalid.
Decisions in Two Test Cases-Date of
the Effect of the Present Tariff
Finally Fixed.

In the Supreme Court today Justice Gray
announced the decision Of the court in the
case of Henry Hilton and others against
Guyot, liquidator of the estate of Fortin
& Company, involving the validity of for
eign 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.
Justice Gray also announced the decision
in the case of Samuel ]. Ritchie agt James
B. McMullen and George w. McMullen, in
error from the circuit court of the northern
district of Ohio. This involved the same
questions the Hilton case except that
the judgment which it was sought to have
affirmed was rendered by a Canadian court.
History of the Contention.
The case of Hilton and Libbey agt. Guyot
involved the validity of judgments rendered
by foreign courts against American citi-
zens and it is understood that large num-
Der Of claims of character similar to that
prosecuted by Guyot, involving many mill
lions 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 1891, but no
conclusion was announced by the court
prior to the adjournment of that term.
and 1t has remained undecided through
this term and until today.
Guyot appears In the case as the liqui-
dator of the French firm of Charles Fortin
& Co, formerly glove manufacturers Of
the successors of A. T Stewart & Co. of
New York.
The history of the case goes back to 1885,
and that of the transaction on which it is
hos 70 xlrha he nf o-f
& Co. entered upon an agreement with one
AleXandEe, the predecessor of FQrtin & 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
judgments in France.
In 1850 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 commerce
of the Seine. where the case was decided
in favor of Fortin & Co., and from which
decision it was appealed by Stewart 6 Co.
to the Paris court of appeals, where the
decision was also antagonistic to Stewart
& Co., the final judgment in the French
courts fixing the amount of the indebtness
Of the New York house to the French firm
at sl95, 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, Fortin
& Co., in 1889, brought suit in the United
States circuit court for the southern dis
trict of New York to compel collection on
the French judgment. The defendants filed
bill of discovery. alleging counter claims
and asserting that the judgment of the
French court was re-eXaminable. The de-
cison was rendered by Judge Wallace of
the circuit court He dismissed the bill of
discovery and ordered that Stewart & Co.
should pay the judgment in accordance
with the findings of the French courts.
States Supreme Court in 1890.
When the Tariff Took Eject.
Chief Justice Fuller handed down the
opinion of the court in the case of the
United States agt. Burr & Hardwick in
volving the date when the present tariff
law went into effect The decision was
that this did not occur until August 2S
1894, when the bill became a law, notwith.
standing the law itself fixed the date as
August l.
Chief Justice Fuller also announced that
the court had decided to grant the appli-
cation of Constable Beach, in the South
Carolina dispersary law case fer leave to
file motion for habeas corpus. The case
was set for hearing on the first Monday of
the next term of the court.
Justice Gray's opinion was very brief
and was delivered indistinctly that it
was impossible to catch his language.
The decision was a denial of the validity
of the judgments of countries which do not
recognize the rule of international comfy
In such matters.