Ward), with Mr, W. Chalairo, appeared' for the plaintiffs and Mr. 'A.C. Holborow for the defendants.
'The judgment in full follows:—An action was brought by the plaintiffs, tke National Aniline and Chemical' Ca., on January. 22, 1921, against the defendants, Arnhold and C. H. Amnhold, as copartners ina firm entitled Arnhold Brothers, who were the successors of Arnhold, Karberg & Ca. in the United States, The action" waa brought in the United States District Court, Southern, District Now York, in the Uriied States of America, "On October 29, 1025, judgment was given by that Court in favour of the plaintiff combat for U.S, Gold $308,834.1. and the plaintiff? obtained execution against the defendants for that sum. The Judgment is still in force and not! yet satiated. Te plaintiffs now bring an action on that judgment in this" Court and claim the sum. Ts. 609,692.15, which is the equiva aleut of the sum of G. $398,834.10 at the date of the judgment. The Dlaintifts further claim interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the New York judgment from the date of the judgment until payment is made or until this judgment is given, I¢ appears that the defendants have appealed against the judgment in New York, but that 4 considerable period will elapse before the ease comes before the U. 'A. Appeal Court The defendants do not resist the judgment against them for the ive interest and therefore interes: recoverable to these Courts. For! the defendants, it is argued that the foreign judgment is a written strument sued upon in these Courts, fand that it is for a sum certain sot out in the judgment, and that in-reft in only recoverable in such factions as the present one, when it interest by way of damages, duly assessed and set out on the face of the foreign judgment.
Legal Differences The legal text-books differ somewhat on this point of law.
Francis Piggott's- "Foreign Judgments," 2nd ed., p. 205, states: "The question of interest on a foreign judgment will be governed by the law of the country whence given by that law on the judgment, whatever the rate may be, it be-Jcomes an integral part of the judg-y|ment to enforce which the action is judgment must brought in the English Court; joo interest is given by the foreign aw, none can be recovered here: the question depends entirely on the foreign law, and if the English jup to the date of giving that judg-mont it seems to follow that it shall tinue to do so until payment. He cites Arnott v, Redfern, 3 Bingham Reports, 353, as an authority for that statement. It is not a very] clear statement and appears to me to be somewhat ambiguous; it may' refer to cases where the interest set out in the judgment or an action, not on the judgment, but to recover interest due.
In any event, the point of law decided in Arnott v. Redfern goes no further than that, where interest has been found due by the laws of foreign country. and that interest! is assessed and set out in the foreign judgment, then it is recoverable, in spite of the fact that it might not have been due by, the English law] fin the English Courts. Halsbury's "Law of England," Vol. 6, p. 305; (Note "h"), is mach more definite.
action in England on {foreign judgment, no interest can be }recovered as such, even though, by! [the law of the country where the judgment was pronounced, it is pay-fable," but "that it can be recovered in the shape of damages." Bonn Dalzell (1828), 3 C. & P., 376, and Doran v. O'Reilly (1816), 3 Price Reports, 250 Ex. Eh, are cited their authorities.
Doran ¥. O'Reilly was a Jamaica judgment for an ascertained amount fang interest was also ached for on the judgment. The Court refused to give interest. Gibbs "C. J. stating: those eases where wel give interest on judgments affirmed, always appears on the face of the record". states:—"He might have recovered interest in the shape of damages". It is an exceedingly meagre report.
Bonn v. Dalzell was an action on Jan Irish judgment. The judgment] was for £81 and the action in the English Courts was on the judgment Jand interest on the judgment. The Jdefexdant paid £81 into Court and Jcontested the claim for interest. It! was a jury case and th> question Iwas left to the jury to decide whether interest should be their verdict was in the negoti 'A Jamaica Precedent This case does not carry us much further. The case of Atkinson v.
Lord Braybroke (1816), 4 Camr~ bell's Reports, nisi Prices, p. 380, Jdoes go further. This was also an action on a Jamaica judgment, on-a [simple contract, debt due, no inter-Jest was allowed, but there is nothing! to show that interest would have theca due in Jamaica. In the judg~ mont in Doran v. O'Reilly it is: set Jout in the report of that case that juflidavits showed that the sum re-
Jeovered would have carried interest Jamaica, and was contended that in that case "the judgment re-Jcovered in Jamaica had consolidated fall the demands in one entire sum, and in_an action brought on that there, the Court would have idea interest".
The leases are in the same year, 1816, Pullen and Leake, Precedents Pleadings," 8th Ed., p. 220, states:—"Interest is not allowable upon foreign Judgment debt unless it forms part of the judgment", but Jdoes not give any authorities.
Dicey's "Cosfliet of Laws, Rale 102, states:—"A foreign judgment may be enforced by an action for the amount due under it if the Judgment is (1) for a debt due, or 'a definite sum of money, and (2) final and conclusive."
Dicey con-wes in his ce int_on the Rule 102, "But a valid foreign judgment foran debt or fixed sum of money may be enforced by action and, under the head "Conditions of enforceability": It must order the defendant in the Englist pay the plaintiff a definite and [judgment for costs due in a Scotch! action—action brought in English' Court on Scotch judgment. In his judgment, Baron Parke—states:—"Wien the Court of a foreign coun-tay imposes a duty to pay a sum certain, there arises an obligation to pay which inlay be enforced in this country." I cite this case for the purpose of the phrase ''sum certain". In Grant v, Easton (1883), In, 13. }@.n.D,, 802, an action on a judgment, of the Vice-Consular Court of Cairo, Brett M. R. says with reference foreign judgments:—"The liability Jof the defendant arises upon the implied contract to pay the amount of the foreign judgment," which. I assume means the amount set out jin the judgment.
In Nouvion v. Freeman (1800), LR, 15 Appeal cases, pi, the learned Lords use the terms "final Jand unalterable" and "a foreign country. unless it is final and] judgment will not be upheld in th conch These statements were in the nature of biter dicta on foreign judgments in general, and!
merely quote them for the purpose of establishing the point that a Jaim for interest necruing day by day can hardly come within the phrases "final and unalterable" and final and conclusive". In wuch cases there would be no instructions} from the foreign Court to pay 2 definite and ascertained am: unt, 'Taking all the cases into consider: ation, there docs appear to be ample authority for coming to the conclus-jon that, on an action on a foreign] Jjudgment in the British Courts, (ae 'Court will not go beyond the actual' sam of money set forth in the! foreign judgment, nor will they take cognizance of any contingent sums fof maney which have accrued or are accruing to that judgment after it! eas been giver.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.