judgment rendered by the tribunals of another state, and if execution be
HILTON v GUYOT
Brief Fact Summary
Hilton (Plaintiff) and Libbey (Plaintiff) appealed from a federal district
court holding that a French court judgment against them for amounts
allegedly owed to a French firm was enforceable without retrial on the
merits.
Synopsis of Rule of Law
No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the
sovereignty from which its authority is derived.
Facts
Hilton (Plaintiff) and Libbey (Plaintiff), New York citizens trading in
Paris, were sued in France by Guyot (Defendant), the administrator of a
French firm, for sums allegedly owed to that firm. The Plaintiffs appeared
and litigated the merits in the French proceeding. The French court
rendered a judgment against them that was affirmed by a higher court and
became final. Defendant then sought to enforce that judgment in federal
district court in New York. That court held the judgment enforceable
without retrial on the merits. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Issue
Do laws have any effect, of their own force, beyond the limits of the
sovereignty from which its authority is derived?
Held
(Gray, J.) No. No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits
of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. No sovereign is
bound, unless by special compact, to execute within his dominions a
sought by suit upon the judgment or otherwise, the tribunal in which the
suit is brought, or from which execution is sought, is, on principle, at
liberty to examine into the merits of such judgment, and to give effect to it
or not, as may be found just and equitable. However, the general comity,
utility and convenience of nations have 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.
Additionally, judgments rendered in France, or in any foreign country, by
the laws of which our own judgments are reviewable upon the merits, are
not entitled to full credit and conclusive effect when sued upon in this
country, but are prima facie evidence only of the justice of the plaintiffs
claim. Reversed.
Dissent
(Fuller, C.J.) The doctrine of res judicata should be applicable to domestic
judgments as well as to foreign judgments, and rests on the same general
ground of public policy that there should be an end of litigation.
Discussion
The Courts decision in Hilton v. Guyot reflects the traditional rule of
reciprocity. According to this concept, foreign nation judgments were
granted the same or comparable treatment as American judgments were
given by the judgment nation. Since the Court in Hilton found that French
courts would not have enforced or executed a judgment rendered in this
country, it therefore held that the French judgment at issue should be
nonconclusive here.
1|Page
PENNOYER v NERFF
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell in
Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was entered against
Defendant for his failure to come to court or otherwise resist the lawsuit,
despite the fact that he was not personally served with process, nor was a
resident of Oregon. Later, in an attempt to collect upon his judgment,
Mitchell attached land located in Oregon belonging to Defendant, and had
it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a Sheriffs sale.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Proceedings in a court of law to determine the
personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has not
jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law.
Facts. Mitchell, a lawyer, sued Defendant, his client, in Oregon state court
for unpaid legal fees. At the time Defendant was a non-resident of the state
who was not personally served with process. Constructive service was
issued upon Defendant by publication. Defendant did not come to court or
otherwise resist the lawsuit, and default judgment was entered against him.
After the default judgment, Defendant acquired 300 acres of land in
Oregon. To satisfy his judgment against Defendant, Mitchell had the
sheriff seize and sell Defendants land. The land was purchased by
Plaintiff, who received a sheriffs deed as evidence of title. The sheriff
then turned the sale proceeds over to Mitchell. Shortly after the sheriffs
sale, Defendant discovered what had happened to his land and brought suit
against Plaintiff to recover the land. This appeal followed after Defendant
lost his suit against Plaintiff.
Issue. Can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to appear in
court be sustained by default judgments where service of process is
accomplished solely through publication (i.e. constructive service)?
Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property within the forum
state owned by a non-resident?
Held. No. The personal judgment recovered in the state court of Oregon
against Plaintiff was without validity, and the decision of the Court of
Appeals overturning that judgment was affirmed.
When a suit is merely in personam (i.e. against a person), constructive
service through publication upon a non-resident is ineffective.
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or
property without its territory. However, a state may subject property
within its boundaries to the payments of its citizens, even when the land is
owned by a non-resident, without infringing upon the sovereignty of the
state of residency of the landowner.
Discussion. Here the Supreme Court of the United States is distinguishing
between suits in personam, and in rem. An in personam suit is a suit
against a person, whose purpose is to determine the personal rights and
obligations of the defendant. An in rem action, meanwhile, is an action
where jurisdiction pertains to property. Thus the court reasoned that
constructive service is sufficient to inform parties of action taken against
any properties owned by them within the forum state, because property is
always in possession of the owner, and seizure of the property will inform
the owner of legal action taken against him.
2|Page
ISC v Washington
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was an out of state company that
employed salesmen within the state of Washington. Washington sued
Defendant to recover unpaid unemployment taxes and served Defendant in
two ways: (1) by mail and (2) by serving one of its salesmen within the
state. Defendant appealed from a verdict for Washington, claiming that
Washington had no personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order for a state to exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have such minimum
contacts with the state so that exercising jurisdiction over the defendant
would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts. International Shoe Co., Defendant, was a company based in
Delaware with an office in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant employed
salesmen that resided in Washington to sell their product in the state of
Washington. Defendant regularly shipped orders to the salesmen who
accepted them, the salesmen would display the products at places in
Washington, and the salesmen were compensated by commission for sale
of the products. The salesmen were also reimbursed for the cost of renting
the places of business in Washington. Washington sued Defendant after
Defendant failed to make contributions to an unemployment compensation
fund exacted by state statutes. The Washington statute said that the
commissioner could issue personal service if Defendant was found within
the state, or by mailing it to Defendant if Defendant was not in the state.
The notice of assessment was served upon Defendants salesperson and a
copy of the notice was mailed to Defendant. Defendant appeared specially,
moving to set aside the order that service upon the salesperson was proper
service. Defendant also argued that it did not do business in the state,
that there was no agent upon which service could be made, and that
Defendant did not furnish employment within the meaning of the statute.
Defendant also argued that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and imposed a prohibitive burden of interstate
commerce. The trial court found for Washington and the Supreme Court of
Washington affirmed, reasoning that the continuous flow of Defendants
product into Washington was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Defendant appealed.
Issue. Is service of process upon Defendants agent sufficient notice when
the corporations activities result in a large volume of interstate business
so that the corporation receives the protection of the laws of the state and
the suit is related to the activities which make the corporation present?
Held. Yes. Affirmed. The general rule is that in order to have jurisdiction
with someone outside the state, the person must have certain minimum
contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For a corporation,
the minimum contacts required are not just continuous and systematic
activities but also those that give rise to the liabilities sued on. Defendant
could have sued someone in Washington. It was afforded the protection of
the laws of that state, and therefore it should be subject to suit.
Dissent. The states power to tax should not be qualified by an ambiguous
statement regarding fair play and substantial justice.
Discussion. This decision articulates the rule for determining whether a
state has personal jurisdiction over an absent defendant via the minimum
contacts test. In general, International Shoe demonstrates that contacts
with a state should be evaluated in terms of how fair it would be to
exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant.
3|Page
Mullane v CHB
Brief Fact Summary. Appellee, a bank located in New York, set up a
trust covering 113 participants and sent notice by publication to all known
and unknown beneficiaries regarding Appellees application for judicial
settlement of the trust, as required under a New York statute. Upon first
distribution of the trust, Appellee would mail notice to known
beneficiaries that could benefit from the interest or principal. Appellant,
guardian of the beneficiaries, appealed, arguing that notice by publication
alone violated the beneficiaries due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Notice must be reasonably calculated under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and give them
an opportunity to object.
Facts. Appellee, Central Hanover Bank & Trust, set up common fund
pursuant to a New York statute allowing the creation of common funds for
distribution of judicial settlement trusts. There were 113 participating
trusts. Appellee petitioned for settlement of its first account as common
trustee. Some of the beneficiaries were not residents of New York.
Notice was by publication for four weeks in a local newspaper. Appellee
had notified those people by mail that were of full age and sound mind
who would be entitled to share in the principal if the interest they held
became distributable. Appellant was appointed as special guardian and
attorney for all persons known or unknown not otherwise appearing who
had or might thereafter have any interest in the income of the common
trust fund. Appellee was appointed to represent those interested in the
principal. Appellant appeared specially, objecting that notice by
publication, permitted under the applicable statute was inadequate to
afford the beneficiaries due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and
that therefore jurisdiction was lacking.
Issue. Is notice by publication of a judicial settlement to unknown
beneficiaries of a common trust reasonable notice under the due process
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Is notice by publication to all of the beneficiaries of a common trust whose
residences are known reasonable notice under the due process
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Held. First issue: Yes. Second issue: No.
Whether or not the action is in personam or in rem, the court can
determine the interests of all claimants as long as there is a procedure
allowing for notice and an opportunity to be heard.
There has to be notice and opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the
nature of the case. The claimants at issue could potentially be deprived of
property here, as the proposed disposition cuts off their rights to sue for
negligent or illegal impairments of their interests. In addition, the courts
decision appoints someone who, without their knowledge, could use the
trust to obtain the fees and expenses necessary for a sham proceeding.
There need not be personal service because the state has an interest in
settling trusts. Notice has to be reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pending action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections. You do not have to
notify all the beneficiaries when the trust concerns many small interests.
Sending notice to most of them will protect their interests sufficiently.
The New York Banking Law, however, that does not require notice to all
persons whose whereabouts are known, violates the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment because contacting beneficiaries by mail at
their last known address is not particularly burdensome.
4|Page
Discussion. The majoritys opinion illustrates that notice by publication
will not suffice only because it would be burdensome for the plaintiff to
notify all parties involved. If the plaintiff knows of a way to contact the
parties, then the plaintiff must bear that expense. Mailing notice to an
address, if known, will suffice. Notice by publication will suffice only if
there is no practical way of knowing the identity or location of the party.

5|Page
IDONAH PERKINS vs. ROXAS ET AL. of the SC of the State of New York is res judicata. Petitioners demurrer
GRN 47517, June 27, 1941 was overruled, thus this petition.

FACTS:
ISSUE:
July 5, 1938, respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint in the CFI-
WON in view of the alleged judgment entered in favor of the petitioner by
Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for the
the SC of New York and which is claimed by her to be res judicata on all
recovery of a sum consisting of dividends which have been declared and
questions raised by the respondent, Eugene Perkins, the local court has
made payable on shares of stock registered in his name, payment of which
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
was being withheld by the company, and for the recognition of his right to
the control and disposal of said shares to the exclusion of all others. The
RULING:
company alleged, by way of defense that the withholding of plaintiffs
By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature of the cause of
right to the disposal and control of the shares was due to certain demands
action and of the relief sought, and this is conferred by the sovereign
made with respect to said shares by the petitioner Idonah Perkins, and by
authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in general
one Engelhard.
nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred. In the present
Eugene Perkins included in his modified complaint as parties defendants
case, the amended complaint filed by the respondent, Eugene Perkins
petitioner, Idonah Perkins, and Engelhard. Eugene Perkins prayed that
alleged calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the
petitioner Idonah Perkins and H. Engelhard be adjudged without interest in
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company and the granting of affirmative
the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert
reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila.
thereon. Summons by publication were served upon the nonresident
Similarly CFI- Manila is empowered to adjudicate the several demands
defendants Idonah Perkins and Engelhard. Engelhard filed his answer.
contained in petitioners crosscomplaint.
Petitioner filed her answer with a crosscomplaint in which she sets up a
Idonah Perkins in her crosscomplaint brought suit against Eugene Perkins
judgment allegedly obtained by her against respondent Eugene Perkins,
and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon the alleged
from the SC of the State of New York, wherein it is declared that she is the
judgment of the SC of the State of New York and asked the court below to
sole legal owner and entitled to the possession and control of the shares of
render judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and to issue
stock in question with all the cash dividends declared thereon by the
execution thereon. This is a form of action recognized by section 309 of
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and
which falls within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila, to
Idonah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that the court has adjudicate, settle and determine.
no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, because the alleged judgment

6|Page
The petitioner expresses the fear that the respondent judge may render
judgment annulling the final, subsisting, valid judgment rendered and
entered in this petitioners favor by the courts of the State of New York,
which decision is res judicata on all the questions constituting the subject
matter of civil case and argues on the assumption that the respondent
judge is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause. Whether or
not the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will give validity
and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by the petitioner in her
cross-complaint is a question that goes to the merits of the controversy and
relates to the rights of the parties as between each other, and not to the
jurisdiction or power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not
the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion
in the course of it is right or wrong. If its decision is erroneous, its
judgment can be reversed on appeal; but its determination of the question,
which the petitioner here anticipates and seeks to prevent, is the exercise
by that court and the rightful exercise of its jurisdiction.

Petition denied.

7|Page
In Re: Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster
Facts
On the night of 23 December 1984, a gas leak occurred at the pesticide
plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, India resulting in
the deaths of more than 2,000 people and injuries to more than 200,000
others. . Thereafter, the India passed a law giving the Indian government
the exclusive right to represent the victims of the disaster. As thus, the
Indian government filed a complaint before a New York district court. The
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of forum non conveniens and lack of personality. The district court granted
the motion on three conditions, namely, that UCC: (1) consent to the
jurisdiction of Indian courts and waive defenses based on the Statute of
Limitations; (2) agree to the satisfy the judgement of the Indian court,
provided it complied with the requirements of due process; and (3) be
subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the US.
Consequently, the Indian government filed sued the UCIL and the UCC
before the a district court in India. The UCC appealed the conditions.
Arguments for the Defendant
While Indian courts may provide an adequate alternative forum, they
adhere to standards of due process much lower than that followed in the
US. Hence, US courts must supervise the proceedings before Indian
courts.
Issue
Whether or not the dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is
proper.
Held
Yes. The Indian courts are adequate alternative fora.
Ratio Decidendi
Almost all of the estimated 200,000 plaintiffs are citizens and residents of
India who have revoked their representation by an American counsel in
favor of the Indian government, which now prefers Indian courts. Further,
the UCC has already consented to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Indian courts. All the witnesses and evidence are likewise in India.
As to the conditions, the first is valid in order to secure the viability of the
Indian courts as alternate fora. The second is problematic as it gives the
impression that foreign judgments the UCC's consent is necessary in order
for the judgement of the Indian courts to be enforceable in New York. The
laws of New York, in fact, recognizes that a judgment rendered by a
foreign court may be enforced in that State except if such judgment was
rendered in violation of due process or without jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant. The request of UCC of supervision by US courts of
Indian courts is untenable. The power of US courts cannot extend beyond
their territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, once US courts dismiss a case on
the ground of forum non conveniens, they lose any further jurisdiction over
the case, except in case of an action for enforcement later on. Denial of
due process may, however, constitute a defense against the enforcement of
the Indian judgment. The third condition is likewise invalid. Basic justice
dictates that both parties must be given equal access to evidence in each
other's possession. Hence, both parties maybe subjected to the modes of
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on equal terms
subject to approval by Indian courts.
8|Page
WING ON COMPANY V. SYYAP HERE: Defendant in the Philippines. So for the court to assume
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, RP Court is the convenient
-Wing On Company incorporated in NY
forum.
-Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP
-the present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case may be commenced
-contract entered in NY: and tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
for the purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement that Syyap
would pay Wing On the value of the clothing material, then after the sale, Summary: should consider both public and private interests
the profits would be divided between them
Private interests:
-clothing materials worth $22,246.04 shipped from NY to RP
*relative ease of access to source of proof
-only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap failed to settle debt and account for profits. *Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses
*cost of obtaining and attendance off willing witnesses
-Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP. *possibility of viewing the premises if appropriate
TC: for Wing On *all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious,
and inexpensive
Arguments of Syyap:
Public Interest
(1) no jurisdiction: Wing On is not licensed to do business in RP, no legal
capacity to sue *administrative difficulties encountered when courts are congested
(2) should have declined jurisdiction: forum non conveniens *jury duty: burden on community
HELD *appropriateness of having the trial in a court that is familiar with the
applicable state law rather than getting another forum enmeshed in a
Affirm!
complicated conflict-of-laws problem
On Forum non Conveniens
WHEN CAN'T REFUSE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
WHEN COURT WOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION BASED ON
*when the forum is the only state where jurisdiction over defendant can be
FOUM NON CONVENIENS
obtained
-Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's
*when the forum provides procedural remedies not available in another
choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
state.
-Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment

9|Page
March 17, 1930 G.R. No. 32636
In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.
A.W. FLUEMER, vs.
ANNIE COUSHING HIX

FACTS:
The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward
Hix. He alleged that the latters will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia
on November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction,
and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner submitted
a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in West Virginia Code,
annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 and as certified to by
the Director of National Library. The Judge of the First Instance however
denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and301 of the
Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether it is necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of
such law in West Virginia as a prerequisite to the allowance and recording
of said will.

RULING:
Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves
in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to
take judicial notice of the laws of the various states of the American
Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of the
law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an
extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state
of West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer
having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia
as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that the
extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time alleged will
was executed. The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of the
will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must be proved.

10 | P a g e
Philippine Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

(1960)

FACTS: The will of Bohanan was admitted to probate; in the probate he was
declared to be a citizen of Nevada. In the hearing for the proposed project of
partition, Nevada law was not introduced. Bohanans widow questioned the
validity of the will under Philippine law; however, if Nevada law was to be
applied, the will would be valid.

HELD: The law of Nevada, being a foreign law, can only be proved in our
courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules. However, it has
been found that during the hearing for the motion of the widow Bohanan for
withdrawal of her share, the foreign law was introduced in evidence by her
counsel. In addition, the other heirs do not dispute the provisions of the
Nevada law. Under these circumstances, the pertinent laws of Nevada can be
taken judicial notice of by the court, without proof of such law having been
offered at the hearing of the project of partition.

As the validity of the testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the

national law of the testator, the order of the court approving the project of
partition in accordance with Nevada law must be affirmed.

1) The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of

foreign law

a) The foreign law is contrary to an important public policy of the forum

b) The foreign law is penal in nature
c) The foreign law is procedural in nature
d) The foreign law purely fiscal or administrative in nature
e) The application of the foreign law will work undeniable injustice to
the citizens of the forum
f) The case involves real or personal property situated in the forum
g) The application of the foreign law might endanger the vital interest
of the state
h) The foreign law is contrary to good morals

11 | P a g e