The Enforceability of Foreign Judgements in American Courts
hTe E nforceability of Foreign Judgements in American Courts
Russell G. Lloyd
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Russell G. Lloyd, Th e Enforceability of Foreign Judgements in American Courts, 37 Notre Dame L. Rev. 88 (1961). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol37/iss1/8
-
THE ENFORCEABILTY OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN AMERICAN COURTS
Introduction
A major problem in the field of Conflicts of Law is "the measure of respect
which must be accorded a judgment of one state when it is placed in issue before
the courts of another."' Today, at least with respect to judgments rendered in
"foreign" States of the Union, the law is clear. Under "full faith and credit,"
such a judgment must be accorded the same effect in a sister state as it enjoys at
home, i.e., it is entitled to extraterritorial recognition and enforcement so long as
it is valid under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and was
handed down by a court competent to act under its local law. 2 With respect to
judgments rendered in foreign nations, however, there is no such certainty.3 Hilton
v. Guyot,4 which established the requirement of the reciprocity of enforcement of
American judgments as a condition precedent to giving conclusive effect to foreign
judgments in American courts, is still the last pronouncement of the United States
Supreme Court in this area. Fortunately, the recognition accorded Hilton5 in the
United States today is limited.
However, it is not because of legal uncertainty that the problem of recognition
of foreign judgments is examined here. Rather, the extension of American
commercial interests outside the territorial limits of the United States, and the increased
contact of Americans with non-Americans, require that rights determined in
American courts be given conclusive effect outside the United States. One
commentator in the field of private international law illustrates this need by comparing
the relations between the United States and the other nations of the world today
to the relations between the original 13 Colonies in 1789.
"Effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated in
any stage of the process within a foreign jurisdiction," Madison remarked
in his comments on the full faith and credit clause in The Federalist,and
he pointed at the special difficulties on the borders of contingent states.
Today, with our banking techniques and the modem means of
transportation, almost every place on the globe has become a "contingent state"
in this respect. It is therefore equally important that judgments duly
obtained in the domestic courts are recognized, and can be enforced,
outside the United States, in Canada, Mexico, or at any other place. 6
Aside from the argument of sound public policy, it is felt that the doctrine of
reciprocity punishes a private party for an assumed fault in the law of a foreign
nation 7- an argument of natural justice.
If public policy. and natural justice decree that issues once litigated in an
American court be given conclusive effect outside the territorial limits of the United
States, how best can this be achieved? Giving conclusive effect within the United
States to judgments rendered by foreign courts is the most obvious solution. Only
then can there be mutual respect and trust for the United States and its courts
within the community of nations.
The scope of this note is a re-examination of the case law and the views of
STUDENT
commentators on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the United States.
The purpose is more than to delineate the areas of conflict. In addition, it is an
attempt to pose the argument for uniformity in the enforcement of foreign
judgments within the United States- a view which, it is believed, would lead to the
recognition of American judgments in foreign courts.
Hilton v. Guyot - The Doctrine of Reciprocity
Prior to 1895, the American view on the enforceability of foreign judgments
in American courts was probably best represented by the language of Chancellor
Kent:
Foreign judgments are never re-examined, unless the aid of our courts
is asked to carry them into effect by a direct suit upon the judgment. The
foreign judgment is then held to be only prima facie evidence of the
demand; but when it comes in collaterally, or the defendant relies upon
it under the exceptio rei judicatae, it is then received as conclusive....
Contrast with this the English view set forth in Godard v. Gray,9 which still
represents the accepted English doctrine.10 In that case, action was brought in England
on a French judgment. Defendant argued that the French court, in rendering the
judgment, had made a mistake as to English law and therefore the judgment could
not be enforced in England.1 Nevertheless, the court held that the judgment
was conclusive, Lord Blackburn saying:
Several of the continental nations (including France) do not enforce
the judgm (...truncated)