Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1895-04-27
DECISIONS BY ALIENS
The Supreme Court Has q Grave
Question to Solve.
THERE ARE MILLIONS INVOLVED
Orders OF Tribunals OF Other Nation.
and What Effect They WIN Have
In This Country.

| Washington. ID. c.. April Alt IL gen.
erally believed that the United States
supreme court will before the adjourn
ment of the present term render a de-
eision in the case involving the validity
Of for-ign judgments In the courts Of
| this q antry. Barring the question of q
rehec' Ing In the income tax cases. this
Is or Dably the most important matter
| now lefore the court. and the fact that
Notwithstanding the cases were argued
during the terms OF 1s93-94 and are stili
undecided. IL would appear to Indicate
that the members of the court have en-
countered difficulties In dealing with
them.
There are two Of these cases. but the
points involved are 80 much alike that
decision In one viii In all probability
be equal to a decision In the other. The
first OF the cases Is that OF Samuel j.
Rischie W.. James w. McMuilin, and IL
Is an appeal from the decision OF the
United States circuit court OF the north
ern district OF Ohio. affirming the tudg-
tnent OF the Canadian court in McMui-
Inns behalf against Ritchie. The Sec
ond Is that OF Henry Hilton and others
vs.. Gustavus B. Guyot, from the United
states circuit court OF the southern dis
trict OF New York. affirming a decision
against Hilton. successor TO A. r. Stew
art a. Co., for the sum of $3.50, ,s53.
In the latter case Guyot appears as
the official liQuidator OF the affairs of
the firm OF Charles Forth a. Co.. glove
| manufacturers. 1t appears that I'm 1896
Stewart 4 Co. entered into an agree
ment with Fortin & Co to sell In this
country all the gloves the French firm
could manufacture and to divide the
profits equally. In 1879 there was dis
| agreement 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 mean
time Stewart d Co.had closed the house
1 which they had hitherto maintained in
Paris and sold their property there.
| The Paris Arm then entered suit In the
federal court OF New York and asked for
the execution of the decree or the
French courts, maintaining the suffi-
cheney OF the judgments OF the foreign
courts. Their judge gave a Judgment
for the full amount. Hilton q Libby.
as successors of Stewart a CO., then
brought the case to the supreme court
1
argued for Guyot by Messrs. William C.
Choate and William d. Chapman. and
by Messrs. ]. c. Carter and Eiihu Root
for Hilton 4 Libby.
| Enormous interests are involved In
the decision. 1t Is said Judgments to
| the amount of xlB. 200. 900 have been PEN
dered In the Canadian courts alone
| against American citizens. The validity
| or 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 con-
dition than that relating to the force
and effect of the judgments of courts
rendered on one nation by the courts
| OF another. Many decisions have been
rendered In England. but they appear
to have 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 conclusiveness of q
foreign Judgment depends upon the cir
eumstances under which IL was rem
dered. Where it was not so conclusive
as to preclude inquiry into the original
merits OF the controversy. then the
state Is under Its ordinary obligation
to the party demanding the inquiry to
give him at least one full and fair op-
portunity of having his cause adjudi-
Gated upon its original merits. This
opportunity. they claim. was denied
them In this case.
II Is understood that a decision has
been reached by the court In the case.
but II is not known whether the opinion
OF the court has been prepared or when
Il win be handed down. It Ia not con-
stdered probable. however, that the
court win again allow the matter to go
| over through n recess.