The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1895-06-04
A FAMOUS CASE
Ia Decided by tho Unitod stntos
Supreme Court.
HILTON y LIBBEy VERSUS GUYOT.
1t Involves tho Validity ofJnd gtnonts
Rendered by Foreign Courts a gains,
amcricaa CitiLcns anu " ilJions of
Dollars Wore Awaiting tho Decision.
Tho Legal birthday oi tho Present
Tariff Inv Decided.

WASHINGTON. D. O., Juno Sin tho
snpromo court to-day Justice Gray nu.
nounccd tho decision Of tho court in tho
case Of Henry Hilton aud o.hors Va.
Gnyot, liQuidator OF tho estate Of For,in
y Co., involving tho validity OF foreign
Judgments, reversing tho decl sion Of tho
court below and remanding tho case for
trial IN tho circuit court Of tho southern
district OF New York. Chisi Justice
Fuller and Justice, Harlan, Browor and
Jackson disScntod, tho court then stand.
Ing Two to four, tho majority being
Gray, Field, Brown, Shiras and White,
Justice Gray also announced tho dc.
e'sIon In tho Richie case affirming the
decision OF tho court below. This was
case involving tho validity OF judy.
inent OF u Canadian court.
Chiot Justice Fuller handed down
tho opinion OF the court In tho case OF
tho United States VS.. Burr and Hard.
wick. Involving tho dA,e when the
present tariff law went into elect. Tho
decision was that this did not occur un.
Il! August 2Sih, 1891, when the bill DO.
came law. notwithstanding the law
Itself fixed tho dato as Augusta.
The case OF Hilton and Libby Va.
Guyot involved tho validity OF judr.
monts rendered by foreign courts
against American ci,iZcns, and 1t Is
understood that n largo number OF
Claims OF n character similar to that
prosecuted by Gnyot. involving many
| millions OF dollars in amount, have
been hold In abcyance until tho con.
cluslon OF the court in this case should
DO made known.
Guyot appears in tho caao as the
llquidator OF tho French firm Of Charles
Forth 4 Co., formerly glove manuiac.
turers OF Paris. and Aessrs. Hilton aud
Liooey, rs the successors OF A. I.
Stewart X Co., OF New York.
The history Of the case goes back to
1850 and that OF the transactions on
whlch 1t Is based to 1850, when the
hoIse OF Stewart & Co. entered upon an
agreement with ono Alexandra, the
predecessor OF For.in & Co., TO tako
from tho French house all the gloves
manufactured by them for the Ameri-
can market, the two establishments to
share both the prot, and loss OF the
business. In 1850 this agreement was
brought to a close by L lnisundcrstand-
inc and mutual charges Of bad faith.
The French firm brought suit in the
tribunal OF commerce OF the Seine. whom
the case was decided in favor OF For,in
* 20. and from which decision it wa,
appealed by Stewart ( Co. TO the Paris
court OF appeals. whero the decision
was also antagonistic TO Stewart & Co.,
the final judgment in the French courts
hHinS The amount Of tho Indebtedness
oil the New York house. 10 tho French
firm at SIPS, 1872 with interest.
Before the final decree was announced
Stewart 4 Company closed their Paris
establishment. and being unable to COL
lect tho amount OF the Judgment in
France, Fortin & Company. in 1889.
brough. suit in tho United Suites cir
cult court for the southern district Of
New York to compel collection on the
French judgment The defendants
filed bill OF discovery. alleging counter
claims and asserting I'll at tho judgment
OF the French court was re-exnminable,
The decision was rendered by Judge
Wallace. OF the circuit court. He dis.
missed the bill Of discovery and or
dered that Stewart 4 Company should
osv the judgment in accordance with
the finding OF the French court.
| The case was appealed to the United
States supreme court in 1890.
The case OF Samuel J.. Richie ys.
James 3. McMullin and George ".
McMulIin, in error from tho court OF tho
northern district OF Ohio. involved the
same questions az tho Hilton case ex-
cept tina. tho Judgment which it was
sought to have affirmed was rendered
by Canadian court.
Chief Justice Fuller also announced
that tho court had decided to gran. tho
application OF Constable Beach in tho
South Carolina dispensary law case for
leave to file n motion for habeas corpus.
The case was sot for h earring on tho frat
Monday OF the next term OF court.
|