FOREIGN COURTS, Kent, after stating that in cases not governed by the constitu tion and laws of the United States; the doctrine of the English law, as to the force.and effect to be given to foreign judgments, is the law of his own country also, observes that the law thus common to England and America " is exceedingly, if not peculiarly liberal, in the respect which it pays to foreign judgments, in all other eases except the case of a foreign divorce or an English marriage. A distinction was early taken by lord Nottingham, and is now recognized both in England, and America, and indeed almost everywhere else, between a suit brought to enforce a foreign judgment and a plea of a foreign judgment in bar of a fresh suit for the same cause. As the effect to be given to a foreign judgment is altogether a matter of comity, in cases where it has not been regulated by positive treaty, and no sovereign is bound to execute within his own dominions a sentence given out of it, the rule adopted, where a suit is brought to enforce a foreign judgment, is that the foreign judgment is to be received, in the first instance, as prime/ facie 'evidence of the debt, but that the defendant is entitled to impeach the justice of it, or to show that it was irregularly and unduly obtained. But the case is different where the losing party comes forward and wishes to institute a new suit upon the same matter, and to open up a foreign judgment dismissing the action, pronounced by a competent court. Iu this case, to interfere with the foreign judgment would he to assume the attitude of a court of review, and the rule in England, conse quently, is that such a decision, when given by a foreign court, is final and conclusive. So obvious, indeed, is the convenience and necessity of this rule, that it has been regarded as forming a portion of general jurisprudenee. '—Kent's Coin. ii. 101, 102. As regards the enforcement of foreign decrees and judgments, the usages of nations have differed considerably, and the subject is far too wide and too difficult to admit of being satisfactorily discussed in this work. The distinction between the recognition of the
judgment of a foreign court, as determining the validity of a foreign contract, and the application of a foreign remedy by the courts of this country, has been pointed out under foreign bill of exchange (q.v.). For practical purposes, however, it may be con venient that we should state that, contrary to the popular belief in England, the French courts are in the habit of giving effect to judgments obtained in England, and that debtors cannot escape from their creditors, as is too generally supposed, by simply crossing the channel. The difficulty, no doubt, still exists where the debtor has escaped before any proceedings could be taken against him in this country, and where no judgment can be obtained. But if he has once been served with process in England, or cited either cdictally or otherwise in Scotland, the creditor may go on with his action against him though he be personally absent from the country, and ultimately enforce his decree against him by the interposition of a French court. The same observations apply to Belgium. In England, there is no regular office, as in Scotland, for the publi cation of citations to persons abroad (see EDICTAL CITATION), but leave to substitute service at the last place of abode, in place of personal service, may now be obtained in some cases from the courts, or leave may be granted to serve out of the jurisdiction. In most countries, the rule as to two foreigners resident but not domiciled is, that they may sue each other in the ordinary courts, as natives do. To this the French courts are an exception, and hold themselves incompetent to entertain suits between undomi ciled foreigners relating to personality, except in matters of commerce (Phillimore, International Law, iv. 645). See JURISDICTION; DOMICILE; INTERNATIONAL LAW. PRIVATE; CONFLICT OF LAWS, eIC.