Hilton vs. Guyot (1895, US)159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed.

95
M ! "ill#$ s Su%% !y&In a prior action, Guyot (plaintiff), a French citizen, sued Hilton (defendant), a United States citizen, in a French court. The French court entered judg ent in fa!or of Guyot. Thereafter, Guyot "rought this action against Hilton upon the French judg ent in a circuit court of the United States in #e$ %or& for enforce ent. The circuit court entered judg ent for Guyot $ithout e'a ining the erits of the case. Hilton appealed, arguing that the circuit court should ha!e e'a ined the erits. 'o(t!in#& (o ity ) neither a atter of a"solute o"ligation, nor of ere courtesy and good $ill. It is a recognition $hich one nation allo$s $ithin its territoryto the legislati!e, e'ecuti!e or judicial acts of another nation, ha!ing dueregard "oth to int*l duty and con!enience, and to the rights of its o$n citizensor other persons $ho are under the protection of its la$s. +The co ity thus e'tended to other nations is no i peach ent ofso!ereignty. It is the !oluntary act of the nation "y $hich it is offered, and isinad issi"le $hen contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. ,ut itcontri"utes so largely to pro ote justice "et$een indi!iduals, and to produce afriendly intercourse "t$n the so!ereignty to $hich they "elong, that courts ofjustice ha!e continually acted upon it, as a part of the !oluntary la$ ofnations.+ ) (ts&
-. The first of these t$o cases $as an action at la$, "rought .ece "er -/, -//0, in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of #e$ %or&, "y Gusta!e ,ertin Guyot, as official li1uidator of the fir of (harles Fortin 2 (o., and "y the sur!i!ing e "ers of that fir , all aliens and citizens of the repu"lic of France, against Henry Hilton and 3illia 4i""ey, citizens of the United States and of the state of #e$ %or&, and trading as copartners, in the cities of #e$ %or& and 5aris, and else$here, under the fir na e of 6. T. Ste$art 2 (o. The co plaint alleged that in -//8, and since, during the ti e of all the transactions included in the judg ent sued on, Hilton and 4i""ey, as successors to 6le'ander T. Ste$art and 4i""ey, under the fir na e of 6. T. Ste$art 2 (o., carried on a general "usiness as erchants in the cities of #e$ %or& and 5aris, and else$here,and aintained a regular store and place of "usiness at 5aris9 that during the sa e ti e (harles Fortin 2 (o. carried on the anufacture and sale of glo!es at 5aris, and the t$o fir s had there large dealings in that "usiness, and contro!ersies arose in the adjust ent of accounts "et$een the . The co plaint further alleged that "et$een ;arch -, -/<=, and .ece "er -, -//7, fi!e suits $ere "rought "y Fortin 2 (o. against Ste$art 2 (o. for su s alleged to "e due, and three suits "y Ste$art 2 (o. against Fortin 2 (o., in the tri"unal of co erce of the depart ent of the Seine, a judicial tri"unal or court, organized and e'isting under the la$s of France, sitting at 5aris, and ha!ing jurisdiction of suits and contro!ersies "et$een erchants or traders. The co plaint further alleged that appeals $ere ta&en "y "oth parties fro that judg ent to the court of appeals of 5aris, Third section, an appellate court of record, organized and e'isting under the la$s of the repu"lic of France, and ha!ing jurisdiction of appeals fro the final judg ents of the tri"unal of co erce of the depart ent of the Seine, $here the a ount in dispute e'ceeded the su of -,0?? francs9 and that the said court of appeal, "y a final judg ent, rendered ;arch -=, -//>, and re aining of record in the office of its cler& at 5aris, after hearing the se!eral parties "y their counsel, and upon full consideration of the erits, dis issed the appeal of the defendants, The co plaint further alleged that the judg ent of the court of appeals of 5aris, and the judg ent of the tri"unal of co erce, as odified "y the judg ent of the appellate court, still re ain in full force and effect9 @that the said courts respecti!ely had jurisdiction of the su"ject atter of the contro!ersies so su" itted to the , and of the parties, the said defendants ha!e inter!ened, "y their attorneys and counsel, and applied for affir ati!e relief in "oth courts9 The co plaint herein is for the reco!ery of the said judg ent on appeal, and ha!ing left no property $ithin the jurisdiction of the repu"lic of France out of $hich the said judg ents ight "e ade9A and that there are still justly due and o$ing fro the defendants to the plaintiffs upon those said judg ents certain su s, specified in the co plaint, and a ounting in all to -,??/,</: francs in the currency of the repu"lic of France, e1ui!alent to B-=0,-77.>< The defendants in their ans$er allege that in the original suits "rought against the defendants "y Fortin 2 (o., the citations $ere left at their storehouse in 5aris9 that they $ere then residents and citizens of the state of #e$ %or&,

7.

:.

>.

0.

8.

<.

/.

=.

and neither of the at that ti e, or $ithin four years "efore, had "een $ithin, or resident or do iciled $ithin, the jurisdiction of that tri"unal, or o$ed any allegiance to France9 "ut tha t they $ere the o$ners of property situated in that country, $hich $ould "y the la$ of France ha!e "een lia"le to seizure if they did not appear in that tri"unal9 and that they un$illingly, and solely for the purpose of protecting that property, authorized and caused an agent to appear for the in those proceedings9 and that the suits "rought "y the against Fortin 2 (o. $ere "rought for the sa e purpose, and in order to a&e a proper defense, and to esta"lish counterclai s arising out of the transactions "et$een the parties, and to co pel the production and inspection of For tin 2 (o.*s "oo&s, and that they sought no other affir ati!e relief in that tri"unal. The ans$er further alleged that pending that litigation the defendants disco!ered gross frauds in the accounts of Fourtin 2 (o., that the ar"itrator and the tri"unal declined to co pel Fortin 2 (o. to produce their "oo&s and papers for inspection, and that, if they had "een produced, the judg ent $ould not ha!e "een o"tained against the defendants. The defendants, on Cune 77, -///, filed a "ill in e1uity against the plaintiffs, setting forth the sa e atters as in their ans$er to the action at la$, and praying for a disco!ery, and for an injunction against the prosecution of the action.

ISSUDE 3F# 6 foreign judg ent ay "e !alidly enforced under the la$s of the United States, especially $hen the defendants contests its !alidity to its failure to follo$ the rules on e!idence under 6 erican 4a$G HeldE #F HatioE (o ity,A in the legal sense, is neither a atter of a"solute o"ligation, on the one hand, nor of ere courtesy and good $ill, upon the other. ,ut it is the recognition $hich one nation allo$s $ithin its territory to the legislati!e, e'ecuti!e or judicial acts of another nation, ha!ing due regard "oth to international duty and con!enience, and to the rights of its o$n citizens, or of other persons $ho are under the protection of its la$s. @It has "een thought "y so e jurists that the ter @co ityA is not sufficiently e'pressi!e of the o"ligation of nations to gi!e effect to foreign la$s $hen they are not prejudicial to their o$n rights and interests. 6nd it has "een suggested that the doctrine rests on a deeper foundation9 that it is not so uch a atter of co ity or courtesy, as a atter of para ount oral duty.I @It is needless to enu erate here the instances in $hich, "y the general practice of ci!ilized countries, the la$s of the one $ill, "y the co ity of nations, "e recognized and e'ecuted in another, $here the rights of indi!iduals are concerned.A @The co ity thus e'tended to other nations is no i peach ent of so!ereignty. It is the !oluntary act of the nation "y $hich it is offered, and is inad issi"le $hen contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. ,ut it contri"utes so largely to pro ote justice "et$een indi!iduals, and to produce a friendly intercourse "et$een the so!ereignties to $hich they "elong, that courts of justice ha!e continually acted upon it as a part of the !oluntary la$ of nations.A @It is not the co ity of the courts, "ut the co ity of the nation, $hich is ad inistered and ascertained in the sa e $ay, and guided "y the sa e reasoning, "y $hich all other principles of unicipal la$ are ascertained and guided.A Ho$e!er in this case it $as said that the courts of France, if the situation $ere re!ersed $ould not apply the judg ent of the court directly. Hather it $ould only ser!e as pri a facie e!idence of the fact of the atter, pending judg ent in the local court. It is in this !ein that the court chose to re!erse the original adoption of the foreign judg ent.