The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-04

valid.
Tba case o< Hilton vs Guyot involved
ne validity % judgments rendered by
foreign courts against american citizens.
ara n Is understood that large num-
hs- ~ claims Of a character similar TO
,haf prosecuted by Suyot. involving
r~,anv millions of dollars in amount. have
hean held IN abeyanee until The conclls-
sion of the court IN this case should be
r-ada known. The case does not properly
belong 70 the present term az court. u
was twice argued during the ferm OF
1904 but no conclusion vas announced
BY the court prior TO adjournment OF that
term. and Il has remained undecided
through this term until today. Guyot ap-
pears in the case as the .iquida.or OF the
French firm OF Charles F0rtin & Co,
formerly glove manufacturers Cf Paris.
and NeSs~s Hilton & T.ibbey, as The sue
cessors OF 4 7. Stewart sS Go. - New
York TIE history % the case goes hack
"a lsS9. and that OF the transactions on
which il u based 10 $50, when the house
% Stewart x 60. made an agreement
with one Alexandrel. he predecessor Of
Forth * Co. 10 take from the French
house all the gloves manufactured by
them for the American market the two
establishments 70 share both the profit
and loss OF the business In 1870 this
agreement was brought 10 close by a
misunderstanding and mutual charges Of
bad faith. The French firm brought suit
in the tribunal OF commerce OF the Seine
when the case vas decided in favor OF
Forth & Co and from which decision IL
was appealed by Stewart & Co to the
Paris court Of appeals. where the decision
was anfaEouistic 10 Stewart & Co the
final Judgment in the French courts FIX
ing the amount cf Indebtedness OF the
American house TO the French house at
$lS5, 10 with interest.
Before the final decree was announced
Stewart & Company closed their Paris es
tablishment. and. being unable to collect
the amount OF the judgment in France.
Fortin & Company in 1889 brought suit in
the United states court for the Southern
district Of New York 10 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
decision was rendered by Judge Wallace
Of the circuit court. He dismissed the bill
Of discovery and ordered that Stewart 6
Company should pay the judgment in ac-
cordance with the finding OF the French
courts. The case was appealed TO the
United States supreme court in 1890.
The case Of Samuel j. Ritchie vs.. James
r. NcMullin and George w NcMullin. in
error from the court Of the Northern dis
trict Of Ohio involved the same questions
as the Hilton case. except that the judc-
ment which IL was sought 10 have affirmed
was rendered by Canadian court
In this case there We're three questions
certified from the United States circuit
court OF appeals for the Second circuit
The first of these was whether the assess
ment for duty under paragraph 373 Of the
act of October l. 1895, should be maintain
ed. Notwithstanding the provisions of the
tariff act Of August y. 1894, and was an
swered in the affirmative.
The second. should merchandise entered
between August and August 2S 1884, be
assessed for duty under paragraph 27G,
schedule J Of the tariff act OF 1894, was an
swered in the negative.
The third question was whether the rates
OF duty prescribed by the first section OF
the tariff act of 1894 unless otherwise pro-
vided for in the act) should be levied, col
iected and paid on all articles imported
from foreign countries or withdrawn from
consumption on and after August J. 1894.
and prior TO August y 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 on it.
Chief Justice Fuller handed down an
opinion in the case of the United States
rs. Burr & Hardwiok, Involving the date
when the present tariff law went into
effect The deasios. was that this did
not occur until August .. 1894. notwith-
standing the law itself fixed the date as
August l. The case was regarded by the
government as one Of great Importance,
and by special arrangement was advanced
20 "A speedy hearing. The government
won.
Chief Justice Fuller also announced
that the court had decided to grant the
application OF Constable Beach, in the
South Carolina dispe1sary law case. for
leave to file a motion OF halbeas corpus.
The case was set for hearing for the first
Monday In the next term of court.
The supreme court adjourned today until
the second Monday In October. Thirty-four
cases which have been argued were left
undecided