Service of Process Volkswagenwerk, U.S. 1988 Procedural Posture Petitioner foreign car manufacturer filed a writ of certiorari to review the determination by the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Division, that service of process on the manufacturer's domestic agent did not violate the Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361. Overview On writ of certiorari from a court decision, the court affirmed the holding that the Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361, applied only to transmittal of service abroad that was required as a necessary part of service. Respondent filed the amended complaint herein for wrongful death in the state court adding petitioner, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, as a defendant. Respondent attempted to serve his amended complaint on petitioner by serving a wholly owned domestic corporation as defendant's agent. Petitioner filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service, asserting that service was proper only in accordance with the convention, and that respondent had not complied with the requirements. The court agreed with the lower court's conclusion that because service was accomplished within the United States, the Hague Service Convention did not apply. Outcome The judgment of the appellate court was affirmed. The court concluded that the case herein did not present an occasion to transmit a judicial document for service abroad within the meaning of the Hague Service Convention. The court found that the Hague Service Convention did not apply; therefore, service was proper. International Judgment Recognition Hilton v. Guyout, U.S. 1895: Plaintiffs sued defendants in a French court under a contract claim. Defendants alleged fraud on the part of plaintiffs, and sought an injunction from bringing suit, but the court would not admit evidence and entered a directed verdict for plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed in a French appeals court. Defendants then sought review in the United States. The court found that comity was reciprocal. Because France did not recognize final judgments of the United States, and would try such judgments anew, French judgments would be given the same treatment. Thus, the comity of the United States did not require the court to give conclusive effect to the judgments of the courts of France. Defendants could receive a new trial.
Service of Process Volkswagenwerk, U.S. 1988 Procedural Posture Petitioner foreign car manufacturer filed a writ of certiorari to review the determination by the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Division, that service of process on the manufacturer's domestic agent did not violate the Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361. Overview On writ of certiorari from a court decision, the court affirmed the holding that the Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361, applied only to transmittal of service abroad that was required as a necessary part of service. Respondent filed the amended complaint herein for wrongful death in the state court adding petitioner, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, as a defendant. Respondent attempted to serve his amended complaint on petitioner by serving a wholly owned domestic corporation as defendant's agent. Petitioner filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service, asserting that service was proper only in accordance with the convention, and that respondent had not complied with the requirements. The court agreed with the lower court's conclusion that because service was accomplished within the United States, the Hague Service Convention did not apply. Outcome The judgment of the appellate court was affirmed. The court concluded that the case herein did not present an occasion to transmit a judicial document for service abroad within the meaning of the Hague Service Convention. The court found that the Hague Service Convention did not apply; therefore, service was proper. International Judgment Recognition Hilton v. Guyout, U.S. 1895: Plaintiffs sued defendants in a French court under a contract claim. Defendants alleged fraud on the part of plaintiffs, and sought an injunction from bringing suit, but the court would not admit evidence and entered a directed verdict for plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed in a French appeals court. Defendants then sought review in the United States. The court found that comity was reciprocal. Because France did not recognize final judgments of the United States, and would try such judgments anew, French judgments would be given the same treatment. Thus, the comity of the United States did not require the court to give conclusive effect to the judgments of the courts of France. Defendants could receive a new trial.