Hilton v. Guyot
| 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.
Hilton established the fundamental basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States, remaining "the most detailed exposition of any American court" on this principle. It is also viewed as the quintessential statement of comity in international law, and is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to assert that international law is part of U.S. law.