Opinion of the Court. before the acceptances, brought a suit at Leghorn against the last indorsees, to be discharged of his acceptances, paid the money into court and obtained a sentence there, by which the acceptances were vacated as against those indorsees and all the indorsers and negotiators of the bills, and the money deposited was returned to him. Being afterwards sued at law in England by subsequent holders of the bills, he applied to the Court of Chancery and obtained a perpetual injunction. Lord Chancellor King, as reported by Strange," was clearly of opinion that this cause was to be determined according to the local laws of the place where the bill was negotiated, and the plaintiff's acceptance of the bill having been vacated and declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction, he thought that sentence was conclusive and bound the Court of Chancery here;" as reported in Viner, that "the court at Leghorn had jurisdiction of the thing, and of the persons;" and, as reported by Mosely, that, though "the last indorsees had the sole property of the bills, and were therefore made the only parties to the suit at Leghorn, yet the sentence made the acceptance void against the now defendants and all others." It is doubtful, at the least, whether such a sentence was entitled to the effect given to it by Lord Chancellor King. See Novelli v. Rossi, 2 B. & Ad. 757; Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 H. L. 414, 435; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. (2d ed.) 450. The remark of Lord Hardwicke, arguendo, as Chief Justice, in Boucher v. Lawson, (1734) that "the reason gone upon by Lord Chancellor King, in the case of Burroughs v. Jamineau, was certainly right, that where any court, whether foreign or domestic, that has the proper jurisdiction of the case, makes a determination, it is conclusive to all other courts," evidently had reference, as the context shows, to judgments of a court having jurisdiction of the thing; and did not touch the effect of an executory judgment for a debt. Cas. temp. Hardw. 85. 89; S. C. Cunningham, 144, 148. In former times, foreign decrees in admiralty in personam were executed, even by imprisonment of the defendant, by the Court of Admiralty in England, upon letters rogatory from the foreign sovereign, without a new suit. Its right to Opinion of the Court. do so was recognized by the Court of King's Bench in 1607 in a case of habeas corpus, cited by the plaintiffs, and reported as follows: "If a man of Frizeland sues an Englishman in Frizeland before the Governor there, and there recovers against him a certain sum; upon which the Englishman, not having sufficient to satisfy it, comes into England, upon which the Governor sends his letters missive into England, omnes magistratus infra regnum Angliæ rogans, to make execution of the said judgment. The Judge of the Admiralty may execute this judgment by imprisonment of the party, and he shall not be delivered by the common law; for this is by the law of nations, that the justice of one nation should be aiding to the justice of another nation, and for one to execute the judgment of the other; and the law of England takes notice of this law, and the Judge of the Admiralty is the proper magistrate for this purpose; for he only hath the execution of the civil law within the realm. Pasch. 5 Jac. B. R., Weir's case, resolved upon an habeas corpus, and remanded." 1 Rol. Ab. 530, pl. 12; 6 Vin. Ab. 512, pl. 12. But the only question there raised or decided was of the power of the English Court of Admiralty, and not of the conclusiveness of the foreign sentence; and in later times the mode of enforcing a foreign decree in admiralty is by a new libel. See The City of Mecca, 5 P. D. 28, and 6 P. D. 106. The extraterritorial effect of judgments in personam, at law or in equity, may differ, according to the parties to the cause. A judgment of that kind between two citizens or residents of the country, and thereby subject to the jurisdiction, in which it is rendered, may be held conclusive as between them everywhere. So, if a foreigner invokes the jurisdiction by bringing an action against a citizen, both may be held bound by a judgment in favor of either. And if a citizen sues a foreigner, and judgment is rendered in favor of the latter, both may be held equally bound. Ricardo v. Garcias, 12 Cl. & Fin. 368; The Griefswald, Swabey, 430, 435; Barber v. Lamb, 8 C. B. (N. S.) 95; Lea v. Deakin, 11 Bissell, 23. The effect to which a judgment, purely executory, rendered Opinion of the Court. in favor of a citizen or resident of the country, in a suit there brought by him against a foreigner, may be entitled in an action thereon against the latter in his own country — as is the case now before us—presents a more difficult question, upon which there has been some diversity of opinion. Early in the last century, it was settled in England that a foreign judgment on a debt was considered not, like a judgment of a domestic court of record, as a record or a specialty, a lawful consideration for which was conclusively presumed; but as a simple contract only. This clearly appears in Dupleix v. De Roven, (1706) where one of two merchants in France recovered a judgment there against the other for a sum of money, which, not being paid, he brought a suit in chancery in England for a discovery of assets and satisfaction of the debt; and the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations of six years, and prevailed, Lord Keeper Cowper saying: "Although the plaintiff obtained a judgment or sentence in France, yet here the debt must be considered as a debt by simple contract. The plaintiff can maintain no action here, but an indebitatus assumpsit or an insimul computassent; so that the statute of limitations is pleadable in this case." 2 Vernon, 540. Several opinions of Lord Hardwicke define and illustrate the effect of foreign judgments, when sued on or pleaded in England. In Otway v. Ramsay, (1736) in the King's Bench, Lord Hardwicke treated it as worthy of consideration, "what credit is to be given by one court to the courts of another nation, proceeding both by the same rules of law," and said, "It is very desirable, in such case, that the judgment given in one kingdom should be considered as res judicata in another.". But it was held that debt would not lie in Ireland upon an English judgment, because "Ireland must be considered as a provincial kingdom, part of the dominions of the Crown of England, but no part of the realm," and an action of debt on a judgment was local. 4 B. & C. 414-416, note; S. C. 14 Vin. Ab. 569, pl. 5; 2 Stra. 1090. A decision of Lord Hardwicke as Chancellor was mentioned Opinion of the Court. in Walker v. Witter, (1778) 1 Doug. 1, 6, by Lord Mansfield, who said: "He recollected a case of a decree on the chancery side in one of the courts of great sessions in Wales, from which there was an appeal to the House of Lords, and the decree affirmed there; afterwards, a bill was filed in the Court of Chancery, on the foundation of the decree so affirmed, and Lord Hardwicke thought himself entitled to examine into the justice of the decision of the House of Lords, because the original decree was in the court of Wales, whose decisions were clearly liable to be examined." And in Galbraith v. Neville, (1789) 1 Doug. 6, note, Mr. Justice Buller said: "I have often heard Lord Mansfield repeat what was said by Lord Hardwicke in the case alluded to from Wales; and the ground of his lordship's opinion was this: when you call for my assistance to carry into effect the decision of some other tribunal, you shall not have it, if it appears that you are in the wrong; and it was on that account, that he said, he would examine into the propriety of the decree." The case before Lord Hardwicke, mentioned by Lord Mansfield, would appear (notwithstanding the doubt of its authenticity expressed by Lord Kenyon in Galbraith v. Neville) to have been a suit to recover a legacy, briefly reported, with references to Lord Hardwicke's note book, and to the original record, as Morgan v. Morgan, (1737-8) West. Ch. 181, 597; S. C. 1 Atk. 53, 408. In Gage v. Bulkeley, (1744) briefly reported in 3 Atk. 215, cited by the plaintiffs, a plea of a foreign sentence in a commissary court in France was overruled by Lord Hardwicke, saying, "It is the most proper case to stand for an answer, with liberty to except, that I ever met with." His reasons are fully stated in two other reports of the case. According to one of them, at the opening of the argument he said: "Can a sentence or judgment pronounced by a foreign jurisdiction be pleaded in this kingdom to a demand for the same thing in any court of justice here? I always thought it could not, because every sentence, having its authority from the sovereign in whose dominions it is given, cannot bind the jurisdiction of foreign courts, who own not the same authority, Opinion of the Court. question is, and have a different sovereign, and are only bound by judicial sentence given under the same sovereign power by which they themselves act." "But though a foreign sentence cannot be used by way of plea in the courts here, yet it may be taken advantage of in the way of evidence." "You cannot in this kingdom maintain debt upon judgment obtained for money in a foreign jurisdiction; but you may an assumpsit in nature of debt upon a simple contract, and give the judgment in evidence, and have a verdict. So that the distinction seems to be, where such foreign sentence is used as a plea to bind the courts here as a judgment, and when it is made use of in evidence as binding the justice of the case only." And afterwards, in giving his decision, he said: "The first Whether the subject-matter of the plea is good? The second is, Whether it is well pleaded? The first question depends upon this, Whether the sentence or judgment of a foreign court can be used by way of plea in a court of justice in England? And no authority, either at law or in equity, has been produced to shew that it may be pleaded: and therefore I shall be very cautious how I establish such a precedent." "It is true, such sentence is an evidence, which may affect the right of this demand, when the cause comes to be heard; but if it is no plea in a court of law to bind their jurisdiction, I do not see why it should be so here." Ridgeway temp. Hardw. 263, 264, 270, 273. A similar report of his judgment is in 2 Ves. Sen. (Belt's Supplt.) 409, 410. In Roach v. Garvan, (1748) where an infant ward of the Court of Chancery had been married in France by her guardian to his son before a French court, and the son "petitioned for a decree for cohabitation with his wife, and to have some money out of the bank," Lord Hardwicke said, as to the validity of the marriage: "It has been argued to be valid from being established by the sentence of a court in France, having proper jurisdiction. And it is true, that if so, it is conclusive, whether in a foreign court or not, from the law of nations in such cases; otherwise the rights of mankind would be very precarious and uncertain. But the question is, whether this is a proper sentence, in a proper cause, and between proper |