The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-22
AN INTERNATIONAL CASE.
Important Decision tn he Handed
Down by the supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, April 2l--It is generally
believed that the United States Supreme
Court, before the adjournment of the pres
ent term will render a decision in the case
involving the validity of foreign judgments
in courts of this country. Barring the ques-
ton of rehearing in the income tax cases,
this is probably the most important mat
ter now before the court. and the fact that
notwithstanding the cases were argued dur
ing the term of 1S93-94 and still remain
undecided, would appear to indicate that
the members of the court have encountered
difficulties i'm dealing with them. There
are two of these cases, but the points in
volved are so much alike that a decision
in one, in all probability, will be equal to
a decision in the other. The first of the
cases is that of Samuel j. Richie VS.. James
D. McMullin. and is an appeal from the
decision of the United States Circuit Court
for the Northern district of ONO, affirming
the Judgment of Canadian court in Nc
Mullins behalf, against Richie; the second
that of Henry Hilton and others VS.. Gus
tave B. Guyot from the United States Cir
cult Court for the Southern district of New
York, affirming decision against Hilton
and Libbey, successors to A. I. Stewart
& Co., for the sum of $3.50. 1852. In the lat
ter case Guyot appears as the official liqui-
dator of the affairs of the firm of Charles
Par-S.
1t appears that in 1856 Stewart & CO.
entered into an agreement with Forth &
Co. TO sell in this country all the gloves the
French firm could manufacture and to d.
vide the profits equally In 1879 there was q
New York house in the Tribunal of Com
merce of Paris and obtained judgment for
the larger share of their claims. The case
was appealed to the Paris Court of Appeals,
but the Judgment was affirmed.
Ia the meantime Stewart & Co; had closed
he hnirc NH ab hoy had ma IN
tanned in Paris and sold. their property
there. The Paris firm, on discovery of this
Court of New York and asked for the
execution of the decree of the French
cult judge acceded to this view, and gave
Judgment for the full amount. Hilton 4
Libbey. as the. successors of Stewart 4
Co., then brought the case to the United
States Supreme Court, where it was twice
Choate and William d. Shipman, and by
MessTs. James c.. Carter and Elihu Root
for Hilton & Libbey. Enormous interests
that judgments to the amount of s160OO,oo
have been rendered in the Canadian courts
alone against American cltlzens, the
validity Of which depends on the decision
in these cases.
The lawyers agree that there is scarcely
any doctrine of the law which, so far as
respects formal and exact statement. is in
more uncertain condition than that
lating to the force and effect of the judg-
ton by the courts of another nation. Many
decisions have been rendered in England,
but they appear to haze left the question
in an involved and confused condition.
Messrs. Carter and Root laid down the
proposition in their argument on the Hilton
case that the question of the conclusive
ness of foreign judgment depends on the
circumstances under which it was rendered,
and where it was not so conclusive as to
preclude inquiry into the original merits
OF the controversy then the State is under
manding the inquiry to give him at least
one full and fair opportunity of having his
cause adjudicated on its original merits
This opportunity, they claim, was denied
them in this case.
1t is understood that a decision has been
reached by the court in the case but it is
not known whether the opinion of the court
has been prepared when 1T will be hand
ed down. 1t is not considered probable
however. that the court will again allow
the matter to go over through recess