Hilton Vs Guyot Summary
I. Hilton v. Guyot
The historical foundation of all foreign country judgments recognition law is United States Supreme Court’s Justice Gray’s decision in Hilton v. Guyot which involved an attempt to enforce a French judgment. Justice Gray held that no sovereign is bound to execute foreign judgments, but the general comity, utility, and convenience of nations “established a usage among most civilized states, by which the final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally carried into execution, under certain regulations and restrictions, which differ in different countries.” In that decision, Justice Gray also provided the foundation for all subsequent common law and statutory formulas for the recognition of foreign country judgments by explaining that comity requires that: …show more content…
However, that was not the end of the analysis because although the French judgment in Hilton met that test, the Supreme Court ultimately held that it was not entitled to recognition in the United States because the recognition of foreign judgments requires reciprocity which French law did not provide.
II. Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act and Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition
The historical foundation of all foreign country judgments recognition law is United States Supreme Court’s Justice Gray’s decision in Hilton v. Guyot which involved an attempt to enforce a French judgment. Justice Gray held that no sovereign is bound to execute foreign judgments, but the general comity, utility, and convenience of nations “established a usage among most civilized states, by which the final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally carried into execution, under certain regulations and restrictions, which differ in different countries.” In that decision, Justice Gray also provided the foundation for all subsequent common law and statutory formulas for the recognition of foreign country judgments by explaining that comity requires that: …show more content…
However, that was not the end of the analysis because although the French judgment in Hilton met that test, the Supreme Court ultimately held that it was not entitled to recognition in the United States because the recognition of foreign judgments requires reciprocity which French law did not provide.
II. Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act and Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition