Hilton v. Guyot | |
---|---|
Argued April 10, 1894 Decided June 3, 1895 | |
Full case name | Henry Hilton v. Gustave Bertin Guyot, et al. |
Citations | 159 U.S. 113 (more) 16 S. Ct. 139; 40 L. Ed. 95; 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2294 |
Holding | |
The enforcement of a foreign judgment rests on whether there is comity with the jurisdiction from which it is issued, based on criteria articulated by the Court. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Gray, joined by Field, Brown, Shiras, White |
Dissent | Fuller, joined by Harlan, Brewer, Jackson |
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.[1]
Hilton established the fundamental basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States,[2] remaining "the most detailed exposition of any American court" on this principle.[3] It is also viewed as the quintessential statement of comity in international law,[4] and is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to assert that international law is part of U.S. law.[5]