The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-04-22
Important Decision Is Expected
From Supreme Court
SOME FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
The Famous Case of A. T. Stewards
Successors
What the Attorneys Say in Regard to the
Hatter-It Is Understood the Opinion
Has Been Written

WASHINGTON, April 21.-It is gen.
orally believed the United States supreme
court will, before adjournment of the
present term, render a decision in the
case involving the validity OF foreign
judgments in courts of this country.
Barring the question of rel.earing in
the income tax cases this is probably the
most important matter now before the
court and the fact that notwiths tanding
the cases were argued during the terms of
1s93-94 and still are under considera ton,
it would appear to indiate that the men,
bers of the court have encountered diff
Guilty in dealing with them. There are
two of these cases but the points involved
are SO much alike that decision in one
will in all probability be equal in the
other.
The first case is that Of Samuel G.
Richie VS.. James w. McMullin and it is
an appeal from the decision of the United
States circuit court of the northern dis
trict of Ohio. affirming the iudg ment of
a Canadian court in McMullin's behalf
against Richie.
The second is that of Henry Hilton ct
al. VS.. Gustav B. Guyot from the United
DtdtcS ClTCulI COuIb III ouc oOtehSih uio-
trct of New York. affirming decision
against Hilton e. Libbey, successors to A.
T. Stewart &, Co. for the sum of $780, $50.
In the latter case Guyot appears as the
Official liqudator of the affairs of the firm
of Charles Forth G. Co., glove manufac-
turers of Pairs.
1t appears that in 1866 Stewart & Co..
entered into an agreement with Forth d
Co. to sell in this country all the gloves
the French firm could manufacture and to
divide the profit equally. In 1879 there
was disagreement and the French firm
sued the New York house in the tribunal
of commerce of Paris and obtained a
judgment The case was appealed to the
Paris court of appeals. but the judmgent
was affirmed. In the meantime Stewart
Co. had closed t. house, which they had
hitherto maintained in Paris. and sold
ther property here The Paris firm then
entered suit in the federal circuit court of
New York and asked for the execution of
the decree of the French courts, main
tanning the sutfciency OF the judgments
OF the foreign courts.
The circuit Judge gave judgment for
the full amount. Hilton & Libby, as
the successors of Stewart IL Co. then took
the case to the supreme court of the
United States and it was twice argued for
Guyot by Messrs. William g. Choate and
william d. Chapman and by Messrs. J. c.
.Cartr and Elihu Root for Hilton & Lib
hey. Enormous interests are involved IN
the decision. 1t is said judgments to the
amount OF $3.50, 900, 900 have been rendered
in the Canadian courts alone against
Americans. the validity of which depends
upon the decision IN these cases.
The lawyers agree there is scarcely any
doctrine of law which so far as regards
formal and exact statements. is in a more
uncertain condition than that relating to
the force and effect of the Judgments of
the courts rendered in one nation by the
courts of another. Many decisions have
been rendered in England but they ap-
pear to have left the question in an in
volved and confused condition. Messrs.
Carter and Root laid down the opposition
in their argument on the Hilton case that
the question of the conclusiveness of
foreign judgment depends upon the
circumstances under which it was
rendered and where it was not so concu-
sive as to preclude inquiry into the
original merits of the controversy when
the state is under its ordinary obliga ton
to the party demanding the inquiry, to
give him at least one full and fair oppor
tunity of having his cause adjudcated
upon its original merits. This oppor-
tunity. they claim, was denied them in
this case.
1t is understood decision has been
reached ly 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 considered prob
able, however, that the court will again
allow the matter to go over through a
recess.