The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-04-27
The Supreme Court Has Grave
Question to Solve.
THERE ARE MILLIONS INVOLVED
Orders OF Tribunals of Other Nations
and What Effect They VIII Have
in This Country.

Washington. D. c., April 21.-It is gen
orally believed that the United States
supreme court will before the adjourn
ment of the present term render a de-
cision in the case involving the validity
of foreign judgments in the courts of
this @ untry. Barring the question of a
rehee ing In the income tax cases. this
Is pr pably 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 still
undecided, it 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 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 Samuel j.
Richie vs. James w. McMullin. and it
is an appeal from the decision of the
United States circuit court of the north
ern district of Ohio, affirming the judg
ment of the Canadian court in McMul-
Inns behalf against Ritchle. 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 decision
against Hilton, successor to A. I. Stew
art 6, Co., for the sum of s2S0,S53.
In the latter case Guyot appears as
the official liquidator of the affairs of
the firm Of Charles Forth & Co.. glove
manufacturers. 1t appears that in 1866
Stewart e. Co. entered into an agree
ment 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 dis
agreement and the French firm sued
the New York house in the tribunal of
commerce of Paris and obtained
judgment. The case was appealed to
the Paris court of appeals, but the
judgment was affirmed. In the mean
time Stewart e. 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 court of New York and asked for
the execution Of the decree of the
French courts, maintaining the suffi-
cheney of the judgments of the foreign
courts. Their judge gave a judgment
for the full amount Hilton & Libby,
as successors of Stewart e Co, then
brought the case to the supreme court
of the United States, where it was twice
argued for Guyot by Messrs. William c..
Choate and William d. Chapman, and
by Messrs. J. c. Carter and Eiihu Root
for Hilton & Libby.
Enormous interests are involved in
the decision. 1t is said judgments to
the amount of s16,0OO,0O0 have been rem
dered 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, is in 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 a
foreign Judgment depends upon the cir
cumstances under which it 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 it's 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 it's original merits. This
opportunity, they claim, was denied
them in this case.
1t is understood that a decision has
been reached by the court in the case,
but 1t is not known whether the opinion
of the court has been prepared or when
it will be handed down. 1t is not con-
sidered probable, however, that the
court will again allow the matter to go
over through a recess.