The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-22

Washington, April 21-It is generally
believed the United States supreme court
will, before the adjournment of the pres
ent term, render a decision in the case
involving the validity of foreign judg-
ments in courts of this country. Barring
the question of rehearing in the income
tax cases, this is probably the most i'm
portant matter now before the court,
and the fact that Notwithstanding the
1884 and still are undecided, 1t would
appear to indicate the members of the
court have encountered difficulties in
dealing with them. There are two of
these cases, but the points involved are
so much alike that a decision in one will
in all probability be equal to a decision
in the other.
The first of the cases is that of Sam
uel J. Richie VS.. James w. McMullin,
and it is an appeal from the decision of
the United States circuit court for the
northern district of Ohio, affirming the
judgment of a Canadian court in Nc
Mullins behalf against Richie.
The second is that OF Henry Hilton
and others VS.. Gustav B. Guyot, from the
United States circuit court for the south
decision against Hilton & Libbey, success
sors to A. T. Stewart & Co., for the sum
of s2S0,S52. In the latter case Guyot ap-
pears as the official liquidator Of the. af
fairs of the firm Of Charles Forth e.
Co., glove manufacturers, of Paris. 1t
appears that in 1866 Stewart & Co. en-
tered into an agreement with Forth &
Co. to sell in this country all the gloves
the French firm could manufacture and
to divide the profits equally. In 1879
there was a 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 judgment was affirmed. In the
meantime Stewart & Co. had closed the
house which they had hitherto maintain
ed 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 execution Of the
decree of the French courts. maintain
ing the sufficiency Of the judgments OF
the foreign courts. The circuit judge
gave a judgment for the full amount.
Hilton & Libbey, as the successors of
Stewart & Co., then brought the case to
the supreme court Of the United States.
where it was twice argued for Guyot by
Messrs. William G.. Choate and William
D. Chapman, and by Messrs. ]. G. Carter
and Elihu Root for Hilton & Libbey.
Enormous interests are involved In the
decision. 1t is said judgments to the
amount of S16,000,000 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 re-
CARDS 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 appear to have left the ques-
ton in an involved and confused condi-
ton. Messrs. Carter and Root laid down
the proposition in their argument on the
Milton case that the question of the con-
clusiveness of a foreign judgment de-
ponds upon the circumstances under
which 1t was not so conclusive as to
preclude inquiry into the original merits
of the controversy when the state is I'M
der its ordinary obligation to the party
the inquiry, to give him at
least one full and fair opportunity of
having his cause adjudicated upon its
original merits This opportunity, they
claim, was denied them in this case.
It is understood decision has been
reached by the court in this case, b'st 1T
is not known whether the opinio- of the
court has been prepared, or when it will
be handed down. 1t is not considered
probable however, tha. the court will
again allow the y~matter to go over
through a rece5s.