159 U.S. 113 (1895)
In 1873 and 1874, Henry Hilton and William Libbey, citizens of New York doing business as Hilton & Libbey, shipped large quantities of merchandise from New York to John F. Guyot and his partners, citizens of France doing business as Charles Graux & Co. in Paris.1 The agreement provided that the defendants would sell the goods on commission in France, collect the proceeds, and remit them to the plaintiffs.2
Disputes arose over the quality and quantity of the goods shipped and over the accounts between the parties.3 The plaintiffs demanded an accounting and payment of the balance allegedly due.4
On April 5, 1883, the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendants for $197,300 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York following a jury trial.5 The defendants appeared by attorneys and raised defenses including breach of contract by the plaintiffs.6 The New York judgment was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals.7 A writ of error from the United States Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.8
On December 18, 1883, the plaintiffs commenced the present action at law in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York to recover the amount of the New York judgment plus interest.9 They alleged that the judgment remained in full force and unpaid.10 The defendants were residents and citizens of France, and had a place of business in the city of Paris. The plaintiffs were residents and citizens of the State of New York, and had a place of business in the city of New York.11 They answered by denying the allegations.12 They asserted that the New York court lacked jurisdiction over them or the subject matter.13 They further asserted that the proceedings did not conform to French law or natural justice, that the judgment was procured by fraud and false swearing, that French courts would not enforce similar United States judgments, and that the amount exceeded what was justly due.14
The defendants also interposed a counterclaim for $100,000 in damages arising from the plaintiffs' alleged breach of the 1873-1874 shipping contract by delivering inferior goods in insufficient quantities.15 The plaintiffs replied that the matters in the counterclaim had already been adjudicated in the New York action.16 The circuit court tried the case before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of the New York judgment together with interest.17 The defendants' motion for a new trial was denied.18 The defendants then sued out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court.19
Whether a judgment recovered in a court of one country against citizens of another is conclusive upon the merits when sued upon in the courts of the second country?20
Yes. The New York judgment for $197,300 was recovered after the French defendants appeared by attorneys and litigated defenses including breach of contract in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The present action in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York sought enforcement of that judgment against the same defendants.23 French courts review the merits of United States judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure articles 2123 and 2128 and the Ordinance of 1629.24
Reciprocity therefore requires that United States courts treat the New York judgment only as prima facie evidence rather than conclusive.25
The New York judgment is not conclusive upon the merits in the action to enforce it.26
Whether the comity of nations requires United States courts to treat a foreign judgment as conclusive when the courts of the country rendering the judgment do not give like effect to judgments of United States courts?27
No. The defendants offered to prove that French tribunals reexamine the merits of United States judgments absent a treaty providing otherwise.30 The record shows no such treaty between the United States and France.31 In 1873 the plaintiffs contracted with the defendants to ship to them from time to time, during the years 1873 and 1874, large quantities of goods, wares, and merchandise, to be sold by the defendants on commission in France, and the proceeds to be remitted to the plaintiffs.32 French law permits full review upon enforcement attempts in France.33
Therefore comity does not require conclusive effect here.34
Comity does not require United States courts to treat the New York judgment as conclusive.35
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Harlan, Brewer, And Jackson
Chief Justice Fuller dissented.36 He maintained that the New York judgment was entitled to full faith and credit because the rendering court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.37 He argued that the defendants appeared and defended without fraud.38
Fuller contended that the principle of reciprocity has no application to judgments of state courts in actions between United States citizens and foreign citizens.39 He concluded that federal courts are bound to give full faith and credit to state court judgments.40 Fuller would have affirmed the circuit court judgment rather than remanding for a new trial.41
Whether a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction may be impeached in an action upon it on the ground that it was procured by fraud?42
Yes. The defendants offered to prove that the plaintiffs presented to the French court of first instance and to the arbitrator appointed by that court, and upon whose report its judgment was largely based, false and fraudulent statements and accounts against the defendants.45 The record shows the New York action involved disputes over merchandise quality and accounts between the parties.46
The defendants alleged that the judgment was procured by fraud and false swearing.47 Such proof, if established, would permit examination of the merits under the fraud exception to conclusiveness of foreign judgments.48
A judgment may be impeached for extrinsic fraud in its procurement.49
Whether defendants who appeared and litigated in a foreign court may later contest that court's jurisdiction over their persons in an action to enforce the resulting judgment?50
Defendants who voluntarily appear and defend on the merits in a foreign court submit to its jurisdiction. They may not later contest personal jurisdiction in an enforcement action, even if their appearance was motivated by protecting property within the foreign country.51
No. The French defendants appeared by attorneys in the New York Supreme Court action.52 They filed an answer raising contract defenses including that the plaintiffs had not performed their contract and litigated the matter to a jury verdict resulting in judgment for the plaintiffs. The record establishes no lack of notice or fundamental unfairness in the proceedings that would permit a later jurisdictional challenge in the enforcement action. The defendants' motivation to protect property within the jurisdiction does not negate the voluntary submission to the court's authority.
Defendants who appeared and litigated may not contest personal jurisdiction in the enforcement action.53