## Facts

- A French steamship carrier issued triplicate bills of lading for goods shipped to New York.
- Robert Johnston, as assignee of the bills of lading, claimed the carrier wrongfully delivered the goods to persons not entitled to receive them and sought to recover their value.
- Before suing in New York, Johnston sued the same carrier in the Tribunal of Commerce in Paris arising from the same transaction.
- The French court, a competent tribunal with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, entered a final judgment for the carrier on the merits.
- In the New York action, the carrier asserted the French judgment as a complete bar to relitigation.
- The New York trial court and Appellate Division refused to treat the French judgment as conclusive, reasoning that French courts re-examine foreign judgments on the merits before enforcing them.

## Issues

1. Whether a final, merits judgment from a French court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties on the same cause of action is conclusive in New York.
2. Whether New York may deny conclusive effect and retry the merits because French practice permits merits re-examination of foreign judgments (reciprocity).
3. What limits apply to collateral attack on a foreign-country judgment offered as a defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments below.
- The French judgment was conclusive on the merits and operated as res judicata barring the New York action.
- New York could not retry the underlying controversy merely because French courts may re-examine foreign judgments; reciprocity was not a condition of recognition.
- Absent recognized grounds to impeach the judgment (such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud), New York courts could not review alleged factual, legal, or procedural errors in the foreign decision.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign-country judgment that is final, on the merits, and rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter is conclusive in New York in later litigation on the same cause of action.
- Recognition of such judgments rests on comity and is not conditioned on reciprocal treatment by the foreign country.
- A foreign judgment is not subject to collateral attack for mistake of fact, error of law, or ordinary procedural irregularity; impeachment is limited to grounds such as want of jurisdiction, fraud, or a narrow public-policy exception.
- The public-policy exception requires more than disagreement with foreign law or outcome; it applies only to judgments offensive to fundamental notions of justice.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York must give conclusive effect to a final French judgment between the same parties on the same claim and may not reopen the merits based on nonreciprocal foreign enforcement practices, making the French judgment a complete defense to the New York suit.


Johnston v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 242 N.Y. 381 (N.Y. 1926)