Norwich bulletin., 1914-06-26
OLD sToNlNeToN SUIT
 IS LEGAL cuRlo One of the Peculiar Cases in Con
 necticut.

In 1878 a curious case arose in Con- necucut. Two men. J. ". stanton ana ". l.. Palmer, one or both of whom lived in Stonington, had rented TWO steamers to the government during the Civil war. They employed lawyer, R. J. Atkinson of Washington. D. C.. to prosecute their claim before the or fcers of the government for servlceS of the steamers Anglo American ana St. Charles in the year 1882. This at torney obtained for them $45,925.14, allowed by the United States.
 Atkinson died and James H. Elm bry was appointed his administrator and he made a demand upon Messrs. Stanton and Palmer for five per cent; of this money, s2.2S6.2o, and he sued them in the superior court of New London county. He demanded in special count a commission Of i've per cent. and also put in a general count demanding s10,000.
 In District of Columbia.
 He withdrew this suit in March, 1872 having previously filed new suit in the supreme court for the DIS, trict of Columbia, and having obtained service on Messrs. Palmer or stanton at Washington, D. c. That case was tried in Washington before a jury and it gave to MT. Embry, administrator, a judgment for S9,1S5.1S. or 20 per cent.
  Messrs. Stanton and Palmer lived in Connecticut no execution from the Washington court could be levied upon them Accordingly MT. Embry brought suit in Connecticut upon this judg- ment, whereupon Messrs. Stanton and Palmer set up defense the only amount due from them was five per cent
 They claimed to have letters from MT Atkinson in which he agreed to perform these services for five per cent.
 Decision for Defendants.
 It will be seen that this was suit by an administrator in order to re- cover lawyers fees. The superior court of Connecticut decided in favor of Messrs. Stanton ard Palmer and enjoined MT. Embry against prose- cutting his suit in Connecticut provided the sum of s2,29S.25 or five per cent. should be paid to him, and the su-s preme court upheld the decision. The sum was paid. but MT. Embry took a writ of error. to the supreme court of the United States
 The supreme court of Connecticut, Chief Justice Park, Judges Carpen sitting in the place of Granger were unanimous in this opinion. The case was argued for Messrs. Stanton and Palmer by United States Senator l.. F. s. Foster and Augustus Brandegee, and for NIR Embry by the late Gov. R: D. Hubbard and Daniel Chadwick of Lyme.
 This case reached the supreme court of the United States and was argued in 1883 before the nine judges. Judges Stanley Matthews of Ohio gave the opinion of the court. A curious fact is that these nine judges, including Morrison R. Wait, chief justice, re- versed the Judgment of the Connecti- cut supreme court and were unanimous in that reversal. Not one of the nine judges sustained the Connecticut su- preme court. They said if Messrs l Stanton and Palmer had any letters they should have been produced be- fore the supreme court of the District of Columbia
 Full Faith and Credit.
 It was said that one of these de- fendants was sick in a Washington hotel at the time, but the court said a motion should then have been made to postpone the case and that mo- tlon supported by an affidavit. But the great point was under the United states constitution, article 4, section 1:
 Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, rec ords and judicial proceedings of every other state"
 It was held that though the Dis iI4Cl oI SOIunlDld IS not a state IL IS a territory subject to the jurisdiction Of the United States and that full faith and credit must be given to the Judgmens of it's courts.
 Valid in Connecticut.
 The court said in effect that the Dis- trict of Columbia judgment is just as valid in Connecticut as if it were Connecticut judgment. To use the language of Justice Matthew's:
 The judgment is conclusive between the parties upon all of the points made in the present suit in the Jurisdiction where it was rendered. and was en- titled to be so regarded in the courts of Connecticut
 Accordingly the judgment of the Connecticut supreme court was re- versed, and the case remanded to the supreme court of Connecticut, with instructions to reverse the decree of the superior court within. and for the county of New London, and to direct that court to render a decree dismiss ing the bill in which the injunction had been prayed for
 DRAWING OF STONiNGTON