Johnston v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique
New York Court of Appeals
242 N.Y. 381 (1926)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
French steamship carrier Compagnie Générale Transatlantique (CGT) (defendant) was supposed to deliver goods to Robert Johnston (plaintiff) pursuant to bills of lading. However, CGT delivered the goods to the incorrect parties. Johnston sued CGT in New York state court. Prior to the New York state court action, Johnston had brought an action against CGT in the Tribunal of Commerce in Paris on the same facts. The Tribunal of Commerce ruled in favor of CGT. The French judgment was considered a final judgment on the merits of the case, and the French court was considered to be a court of competent jurisdiction. CGT attempted to raise the judgment of the French court as a defense, but the lower courts did not recognize the judgment as having any effect on the New York proceeding. The lower courts found that under French law, foreign judgments were not executed without confirming the merits of the underlying case, so a United States court was not required to defer to a final French judgment without similarly reviewing the merits of the underlying claim. The lower courts evaluated the merits of the cause of action and found that the French judgment contradicted principles of American law. Therefore, the lower courts disregarded the French judgment. CGT appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pound, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
