John Sanderson & Co. (Wool) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., Ltd., No. 77-1374

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES; BOWNES
Citation569 F.2d 696
PartiesJOHN SANDERSON & CO. (WOOL) PTY. LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUDLOW JUTE CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date05 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1374

Page 696

569 F.2d 696
JOHN SANDERSON & CO. (WOOL) PTY. LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUDLOW JUTE CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 77-1374.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Argued Nov. 8, 1977.
Decided Jan. 5, 1978.

Robert E. Sullivan, Boston, Mass., with whom James M. Hughes and Herrick & Smith, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas E. Goode, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale, Sanderson, Byrnes & Morton, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

BOWNES, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee entered in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts upholding an Australian court's default judgment for plaintiff in a contract action. Defendant-appellant alleges that the Australian judgment was obtained by fraud and that the district court should not have granted summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material facts. Defendant also claims that enforcement of the Australian judgment would violate United States treaty provisions and policy.

Plaintiff is an Australian company. Defendant is incorporated in Massachusetts, but its business is conducted in India. Plaintiff and defendant began doing business with each other in 1958. For the first three years, defendant shipped jute from India directly to Australian customers based on orders obtained by plaintiff. Plaintiff was paid a commission on each order. Because of the applicable Indian foreign exchange regulations, defendant had to obtain permission from the Reserve Bank of India before it made each commission payment.

In 1961, a new arrangement was entered into by which defendant shipped jute directly to plaintiff for resale. Plaintiff paid defendant for the jute within one hundred

Page 697

twenty days of shipment whether or not it was resold during that period. This arrangement was predicated on the assumption that plaintiff would resell the jute at a higher price than it paid for it. Plaintiff was obligated to remit to defendant any profit in excess of its commission and expenses. All shipments were invoiced to plaintiff in Indian rupees with the approval of Indian custom officials.

Because of falling jute prices in Australia, plaintiff incurred a net loss of approximately $96,000 (Australian) on sales of approximately $700,000 from September 1, 1961, through January 1966. On June 1, 1966, plaintiff wrote to defendant claiming that it was obligated to be reimbursed for its losses. On June 23, 1966, a representative of defendant responded saying that he would review the claim to see whether it could legally reimburse plaintiff.

Defendant did not pay the claim, and, in October, 1967, plaintiff filed suit against it in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. Defendant received notice of the suit in its Massachusetts office pursuant to an Australian long arm statute similar to the Massachusetts long arm statute, but did not appear to defend the claim.

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment in Australia in 1968. In 1971, it filed the present action to enforce the judgment.

Recognition of foreign judgments in the United States is predicated on the considerations found in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 205-206, 16 S.Ct. 139, 159, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895). 1

When an action is brought in a court of this country, by a citizen of a foreign country against one of our own citizens, to recover a sum of money adjudged by a court of that country to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and the foreign judgment appears to have been rendered by a competent court, having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, and upon due allegations and proofs, and opportunity to defend against them, and its proceedings are according to the course of a civilized jurisprudence, and are stated in a clear and formal record, the judgment is prima facie evidence, at least, of the truth of the matter adjudged; and it should be held conclusive upon the merits tried in the foreign court, unless some special ground is shown for impeaching the judgment, as by showing that it was affected by fraud or prejudice, or that, by the principles of international law, and by the comity of our own country, it should not be given full credit and effect.

Accord, Scola v. Boat Frances R., Inc., 546 F.2d 459 (C.A. 1 1976); Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 (C.A. 2 1976); Somportex Limited v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435 (C.A. 3 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 1294, 31 L.Ed.2d 479 (1972); Alleghany Corporation v. Kirby, 218 F.Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y.1963), aff'd, 333 F.2d 327 (C.A. 2 1964), cert. granted, 381 U.S. 933, 85 S.Ct. 1772, 14 L.Ed.2d 698 (1965), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 384 U.S. 28, 86 S.Ct. 1250, 16 L.Ed.2d 335, reh. denied, 384 U.S. 967, 86 S.Ct. 1583, 16 L.Ed.2d 335 (1966). (Alleghany also distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • McInnis v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 82-0422-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • January 14, 1986
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Ci......
  • Russell v. Salve Regina College, Civ. A. No. 85-0628-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • November 17, 1986
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Ci......
  • Gleason v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 83-0694 S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • June 20, 1984
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Ci......
  • Irish Subcommittee v. Rhode Island Heritage Com'n, Civ. A. No. 85-0751 P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • September 30, 1986
    ...the Court must view the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. John Sanderson & Co. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978). If the Court finds that no material facts are disputed, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • McInnis v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 82-0422-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • January 14, 1986
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Cir.19......
  • Russell v. Salve Regina College, Civ. A. No. 85-0628-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • November 17, 1986
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Cir.19......
  • Gleason v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 83-0694 S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • June 20, 1984
    ...the motion, Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc., 701 F.2d at 986; John Sanderson & Co. (WOOL) Pty. Ltd. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978), indulging all inferences favorable to that party. Santoni v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 677 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Cir.19......
  • Irish Subcommittee v. Rhode Island Heritage Com'n, Civ. A. No. 85-0751 P.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • September 30, 1986
    ...fact, the Court must view the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. John Sanderson & Co. v. Ludlow Jute Co., 569 F.2d 696, 698 (1st Cir.1978). If the Court finds that no material facts are disputed, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT