Foreign Court Judgment Under the Principle of Comity
In Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 533, 122 A.2d 593 (1956) the New Jersey Supreme Court delineated the standard for the application of comity:
The recognition of a judgment of a foreign court under the principle of comity is subject generally to two conditions:
(1) that the foreign court had jurisdiction of the subject matter;
(2) that the foreign judgment will not offend the public policy of our own State. Zanzonico v. Neeld, 17 N.J. 490, 495, 111 A.2d 772, (1955); cf. Guarantee Bank & Trust Co. v. Gillies', 8 N.J. 88, 101, 83 A.2d 889 (1951); Hachez v. Hachez, supra, 124 N.J. Eq. 442 at page 447, 1 A.2d 845.
The rule of comity is grounded in the policy of avoiding conflicts in jurisdiction, unless upon strong grounds, and the general principle that the court which first acquires jurisdiction of an issue has precedence, in the absence of special equities.
A litigant cannot be compelled to act elsewhere, but may remain in the court which first acquires jurisdiction and abide by the terms of its decree. O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 6 N.J. 170, 179, 78 A.2d 64 (1951); Stultz v. Stultz, 15 N.J. 315, 319, 104 A.2d 656 (1954).
The expressions in these cases on principles of comity are in accord with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.