The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-22
ONE TANGLED PROBLEM
The Validity Of Foreign Judgments in
Ullted States Courts.
BIG INTERESTS INVOLVED
Matters Which the Supreme Court
Has Decided to Dispose OF
During the Present
Sitting.

WASHINGTON, April 2l.-It is generally
believed that the United States supreme
court will, before the Adjournment Of the
present term, render q decision in the
case involving the validity of foreign judR-
nnents in courts Of this country. Barring
the question of a rehearing In the income
tax cases, this is probably the most inn
portant matter now before the court, and
the fact that Notwithstanding the cases
were argued during the terms of 1884
and still are undecided, It would ap-
pear TO indicate that the members
Of tho court have encountered difficult
ties 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 to decision In
the other.
Tho first of the cases is that of Samuel
j. Richie vs.. James w. McMullin, and IL
is an appeal from the decision of the
United States circuit court for the north
ern district Of Ohio. affirming judgment of
Canadian court in McMullIn's behalf
against Ritchie. The second Is that of
Henry Hilton and others VS.. Gustav b.
Guyot, from the United States circuit
court. for the Southern district of New
York affirming a decision against Hilton
d Libbey, successors to A. I. Stewart &
Co., for the sum of S2s0,s52. In the
latter case Guyot appears as the official
liquidator of the affairs of the firm of
Charles Fortin d Co., glove manufacture
ers, Of Paris.
IL appears that in 1866 Stewart & Co.
entered into an agreement with Fortin q
Co. to sell in this country all the gloves
the French firm could manufacture and
to divide the profits equally. In 1879 there
was disagreement and the French firm
sued the New York house in the tribunal
of commerce of Paris and obtained q
judgment. The case was appealed to the
Paris court of appeals, but the judgment
was affirmed. In the meantime Stewart
q Co. had closed the house which they
had hithertofore maintained in Paris and
sold their property there. The Paris firm
then entered suit in the federal circuit
court of New York and asked for the ex-
ecution of the decree of the French
courts, maintaining the suficiency of the
judgments of the foreign courts. The
circuit judge gave Judgment for the full
amount. Hilton d Libbey, as successors
of Stewart & Co., then brought the case
to the supreme court of the United
States, where IL was twice argued for
Guyot by Messrs. William Choate and
William ID. Chipman and by Messrs. j.
Libbey.
Enormous interests are involved In the
decision. IL is said judgments to the
amount of SIG, 900, 900 have been rendered
in the Canadian courts alone against
American citizens, 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, 10 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 un-
volved and confused condition.
Messrs. Carter and Root laid down the
proposition in their argument on the Hill
ton case that the question of the conclu-
siveness of foreign Judgment depended
upon the circumstances under which IL
was rendered and where it was not so
conclusive as to preclude inquiry into the
original merits of tho controversy, whom
the state is under its ordinary obligation
TO tho party demanding the inquiry.
to give him at least one full
and fair opportunity of having
his case adjudicated upon its
original merits. This opportunity, they
claim, was denied them in this case. Ii
is understood decision has been reached
by the court in the case. but il is not
known whether the opinion of the court
has been prepared or when il will be
handed down. II is not considered prob
able, however. that the court will again
allow the matter TO go over through q re-
cess.