Opinion ID: 302778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Element of Reciprocity.

Text: 294 In Hilton v. Guyot, enforcement in the federal courts of an executory French judgment for the recovery of money was denied by the Supreme Court because France would not enforce an American judgment without first examining the merits of the controversy. 59 But on the same day that Hilton was decided, the Supreme Court enforced an executory Canadian money judgment, holding that by the law of England, prevailing in Canada, a similar United States judgment would be enforced in Canada. Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U.S. 235, 16 S.Ct. 171, 40 L.Ed. 133 (1895). 295 Plaintiff has urged that there is a substantial question whether Zambian courts would afford recognition to a judgment of a United States court. However, no cases, statutes or treatises, Zambian or otherwise, have been brought to our attention in support of such proposition. On the other hand, we may assume that Zambia would recognize a judgment rendered in an American court. Zambia was formerly a British protectorate and decisions rendered by English courts are authoritative precedents in Zambia. Changes in sovereignty do not affect changes in local common law unless such law is affirmatively altered by the new government. 60 Since English courts grant reciprocity to judgments rendered by courts of the United States, 61 the assumption that Zambian courts would do so also is not unreasonable. 62 296 Having decided that the reciprocity factor is not a bar to the recognition of the Zambian decree, the next inquiry is whether the other criteria of Hilton have been satisfied. 297