The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-22
IT MUST BE DETERMINED.
The Supreme Bench Expected
to Hand Down an Opinion
Before Recess.
MILLIONS ARE AT STAKE.
Arguments Have Been Heard and a
Conclusion Is Believed to Have
Been Reached.

WASHINGTON, D. c., April 21.-It is
generally believed the United States Su-
preme Court will before the adjournment
of the present term render decision in
the case involving the validity of foreign
judgments in courts of this country. Bar
ring the question of rehearing in the in
come tax cases this is probably the most
important 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 appear to
indicate the members of the court have en-
countered difficulty 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.
The first of the cases is that of Samuel ].
Richie vs. James W. McMullin, and it is
an appeal from the decision of the United
States Circuit Court for the Northern Dis
trict of Ohio affirming the judgment of
Canadian court in McMullin's 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
ern District of New York affirming a deci-
sion against Hilton e. Libbey, successors
to A. T. Stewart g. Co., for the sum of
$3.50, $50. In the latter case Guyot appears
as the official liquidator of the affairs of
the firm of Charles Forth & 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 III the Tribunal
of Commerce of Paris and obtained judg-
ment. 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 maintained in Paris and sold
their property there. The Paris firm then
entered suit in the Federal Circuit Court
of New Y ork and asked for the execution
of the decree of the French courts, main
tanning 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. Chip
man, and by Messrs. J. c. Carter and
Elihu Root for Hilton & Libbey. Enor-
nous interests are involved in the de-
cision. 1t is said judgments to the amount
of $16,000000 have been rendered in the
Canadian courts alone against Afneri-
Of 4la l. i i
upon the decisions in these cases.
The lawyers agree there is scarcely any
doctrine of law which so far as regards
formal and exact statement 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 question in an involved 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 a foreign judgment depends
upon the circumstances under which it was
rendered, and where it was not so con-
elusive as to preclude inquiry into the
original merits of the controversy, when
the State is under its ordinary obligations
to the party demanding the inquiry, to
give him at least one full and fair oppor-
tunity of having his cause adjudicated
upon it's original merits. This oppor-
tunity, they claim, was denied them in
this case.
1t is understood 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 or when it will be
handed down. 1t is not considered proba-
bic, however, that the court will again
allow the matter to go over through re-
cess.