Hilton v. Guyot
159 U.S. 113 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judgment for a sum of money rendered by a court of a foreign country is not conclusive evidence in a U.S. court if that foreign country's laws do not grant reciprocal conclusive effect to judgments from U.S. courts. In such cases of non-reciprocity, the foreign judgment serves only as prima facie evidence of the merits of the underlying claim.
Facts:
- Henry Hilton and his partner were citizens and residents of New York who operated a business with a branch office and an agent in Paris, France.
- Hilton's firm regularly purchased large quantities of goods in Paris for their business.
- Guyot, a French citizen, and his firm were engaged in ongoing commercial transactions with Hilton's firm in France.
- These business dealings were based on contracts made and partially performed in France.
- A dispute arose between the parties regarding money that Guyot's firm claimed was owed by Hilton's firm from these transactions.
Procedural Posture:
- Guyot sued Hilton in the Tribunal of Commerce of Paris, a French court of first instance.
- Hilton and his partner appeared, defended the action, and filed their own counterclaims against Guyot.
- The Tribunal of Commerce of Paris consolidated the actions and, based on the report of a court-appointed referee, rendered a judgment in favor of Guyot.
- Hilton appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Paris, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal of Paris affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Guyot then filed an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York to enforce the French judgment.
- The Circuit Court, acting as the trial court, held that the French judgment was conclusive on the merits and directed a verdict for Guyot.
- Hilton, the defendant-appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a money judgment, rendered by a competent court in a foreign country where U.S. judgments are reviewable on the merits, have conclusive effect in a U.S. federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gray
No, the foreign judgment does not have conclusive effect. When the courts of a particular foreign country do not give conclusive effect to judgments from United States courts, the principle of comity does not require U.S. courts to give conclusive effect to judgments from that country. International law is founded upon mutuality and reciprocity; therefore, a judgment from a nation that would review a U.S. judgment on the merits is not entitled to be considered conclusive in a U.S. court. Instead, such a judgment is treated as prima facie evidence of the justice of the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the merits of the original controversy. Here, the evidence showed that French courts review the merits of U.S. judgments, so this French judgment against Hilton cannot be considered conclusive.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Fuller
Yes, the foreign judgment should have conclusive effect. The doctrine of res judicata, which promotes the finality of litigation, should apply to foreign judgments just as it does to domestic ones, provided the rendering court had jurisdiction and the proceedings were free of fraud. The defendants voluntarily participated in the French legal system, even filing their own counterclaims, and should be bound by the result. The majority's reciprocity rule is a form of judicial retaliation ('retorsion'), which is a political and legislative matter, not a judicial one. Courts should enforce private rights acquired under foreign judgments without regard to the political policies of the foreign nation.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the doctrine of reciprocity for the enforcement of foreign judgments in U.S. federal courts. It conditions the conclusiveness of a foreign judgment on the foreign jurisdiction's treatment of American judgments, making comity a conditional, two-way street. This holding created a significant split in American jurisprudence, as many state courts and subsequent uniform acts (like the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act) have rejected the reciprocity requirement, favoring finality as long as the foreign proceeding was fundamentally fair. The case highlights the tension between judicial comity as a matter of legal principle and as a tool of foreign policy, with the dissent arguing that such policy considerations belong to the political branches of government.
