The herald., 1895-06-04
The Hilton Case Decided by the
Federal Court
AN IMPORTANT OPINION
Four of the United States Judges Dis
Sented
Decision Also Given in the latter Involving
the Date OF the Going Into Effect
OF the Tariff Law
Associated Press Special Wire.

NASd lNGION, June 3.-ln the Su'
preme court today Judge Gray announced
decision III the case of Henry Hilton
and others against Cuyet, liquidator Of
the estate of Forth & Co., involving the
validity OF foreign judgments and revers.
ing the decision of ;he court below and
remanding the case ::for trial in the circuit
court of the southern district of New
York. Chief Justice Fuller and Justi ces
Harlan, Brewer and Jackson dissented.
The court stood five TO four, the ma jority
being Gray, Field, Brown, Shiras and
White.
Justice Gray's opinion was very briel
and delivered so ndistinctly that it was
impossible to catch his language. The
decision was a denial of the validity OF
the judgments OF countries which, do not
recognize the rule of international comfy
in such matters. The rule of comfy
said Justice Gray, is recognized by some
of the foreigen countries, including
Greece and Portugal, but it is not in
force in the French courts. lie made
this refusal OF the French courts to rec
ognize the judgments of other countries
the basis OF his opinion that q jltdg-
ment III the French courts would not be
held i'll this country. Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer and
Jackson, who dissented, did not an
case in error. to the circuit court of the
northern district of Ohio, involving a
Canadian Judgment, there was no allega-
ton of fraud, but only an error on tn e
part of the court Justice Gray said thi 3
was not sufficient foundation for review
and affirmed the decision OF the court
below. which held the Canadian judg-
ment to be valid.
The case of Hilton & Libbey VS..
Guyot involved the validity OF judg
ments rendered by foreign courts against
Am erican citizens, ana it is understood
that a large mum Der of claims of char
acter similar to that presented by Guyot
involving many millions OF dollars in
amount, have been held in allegiance un-
til the conclusion OF the court in this
case should be made known. The case
does noe properly belong to the present
term OF the court. 1t was twice argued
during the term of 1884, but no con-
clusion was announced by the court prior
to the adjournment of that term. and it
has renamed undecided through this
term until today. Guyot appears in the
case as the liquidator OF the French firm
of Charles Forth x Co.. formerly glove
manufacturers OF Paris, and Messrs. Hill
ton Il Libbey as the successors of A. L.
Stewart & Co. of New York. The history
of the case goes back to 1880, and that OF
the transactions on which it is based to
1850, when the house of Stewart d Co.
entered INTO an agreement with one Alex
andrel, the predecessor vf Forth e. Co..
to take from the French house all the
gloves manufactured by them for the
American market, the two esta blishments
to share both the profit and loss of the
business. In 1880 this agreement was
brought to close by misunderstanding
and mutual charges of bad faith. The
French trm brought suit IN the tribunal
of comm erce of the Seine, when the case
vas decided in favor of Fortln & Co..
and from which decision it was appealed
by Stewart O. Co. to the Paris court of ap-
peals, where the decision was as antago :
nistic to Stewart q Co., the final iudg-
ment in the French courts fixing the
amount of the Indebtedness OF the house
to the French house at $l95, 122 with in
terest.
Before the final decree was announced
Srtewart d Co. closed their Paris estab =
lishment and being unable to collect the
amount of the judgment in France, For
tin a. G Co. in 1889 brought suit in the
United States court for the southern dis
trct OF New Iorkkto compel collection on
the French judgment. The defendants
filed a bill of discovery, alleging counter
claims and asserting that the judgment
of the French court was re-examineab BILE.
The decision was rendered by Judge
Wallace OF the circuit court. He dismiss
ed the bill Of discovery and ordered Stew
art & Co. to pay the Judgment in acord-
ance with the finding of the French
courts. The case was appealed to the
United States supreme court in 1890.
The case OF Samuel J. Richie against
James B. McMullen and George W. Nc
Mullin in error from the court of the
northern district of Ohio, involved the
same questions as the Hilton case exec ept
that the judgment which 1t was sought to
h1vp at6 cd ranIarp1 by a Cana
dian court. In this case there were three
questions certified from the United States
circuit court OF appeals for the second
circuit. The first of these was as to
whether the assessment for duty under
paragraph 1873 of the act of October /. 1890
should be maintained. notwithstandin G
the provisions Of the tariff act of August
%, 1884, and was answered in the atfirma-
tive.
TIE second, should merchandise enter
ed between August 1st and August %,
1894, be assessed for duty under para
graph 276. schedule J of the tariff act of
1894, was answered in the negative.
The third question was whether the
rates of duty prescribed by the first Sec
tion Of the tariff act of 1894 (unless other.
wise provided for in the act) should be
levied. collected and paid on all article S
i'm ported from foreign countries, or with
drawn from consumption and after
August l, 1871, and prior to August 18th
of the same year, Chief Justice Fuller,
who delivered the opinion of the court
in brief said the case was so indefinite
that the court would not enter upon it.
The supreme count adjourned today un-
til the second Monday in October. Thir-
ty-four cases which were argued were left
undecided
Justice Gray also announced a decision
in the Ritchie case confirming the deci-
sion of the court below This was the
case involving the validity of judgment
by Canadian court.
Chief Justice Fuller handed down the
opinion in the case of the United States
against Burr and Hardwlch. involving
the date when the present tariff law went
into effect. The decision was that this
did not occur until August Is, 1894, when
the bill became law, notw outstanding
the law itself fixed the date as August
1st. The case was regarded by the gov
ernment as one of great importance ano
by special agreement it was advanced &c
a speedy hearing. The government won
Chief Justice Fuller also announced
that the court had decided to grant thu
application of Constable Beach in the
South Carolina dispensary law case fol
leave to file a motion for habeas corpus
The case was set for hearing the frs
Monday at the next term of court.