Opinion ID: 2199033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Dutch Judgment.

Text: In 1949 Marie and Tom filed suit in Holland against Jan. The case presented the issue of ownership of certain shares of the Dutch Bata Company  Bata Best. The disputed shares were adjudged to belong to Jan. In so holding the Dutch Court of Appeal found, among other things, that the sale memorandum and the will should be construed as creating a sales legacy to Jan. This latter holding, Jan claims, is res judicata here by way of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Tom asserts the contrary. This issue  simple enough to state  presents several very difficult questions. We entertain no doubt that a foreign judgment, given by a court under a system of law reasonably insuring notice and hearing, as distinct from an issue decided in the course of rendering that judgment, is res judicata in Delaware, despite a dictum to the contrary in an early Delaware case. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95, and note in 46 A.L.R. at page 439. But the question of applying collateral estoppel to a foreign judgment is, we think, not so simple, despite defendant's able argument to the contrary. Before dealing with this question, however, it will be helpful, first, to examine the opinions of the Dutch courts in order to determine just what those courts decided; and, second, the Chancellor's answer to the question. In the District Court in Holland Jan first advanced three claims: an inter vivos purchase; acquisitive prescription, i. e., legal possession for three years; and forfeiture of rights. Some months later an additional claim of sales legacy was alleged as an alternative theory. The District Court sustained the defense of forfeiture of rights. The first and principal part of its opinion deals with this point. It then went on to say that the verbal contract of sale was plausible, and that even if it were not, the two documents would leave scope for the view that they contained a sales legacy to Jan.