The Enforceability of Foreign Judgements in American Courts

Notre Dame Law Review, Dec 1961

By Russell G. Lloyd, Published on 10/01/61

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3470&context=ndlr

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)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3470&context=ndlr

Russell G. Lloyd. The Enforceability of Foreign Judgements in American Courts, Notre Dame Law Review, 1961, Volume 37, Issue 1,