Home/D.C. Circuit/Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc.

Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc.

316 F.2d 393, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 392, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 49, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5951
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 7, 1963
Docket16988_1
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 393 (Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc., 316 F.2d 393, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 392, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 49, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5951 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by this appeal is whether the appellee, Napco Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is “doing business” in the District of Columbia within the intendment of 13 D.C.Code § 103. The facts show generally that Napco is engaged in the business of trading with various foreign governments through their representatives in the District of Columbia and maintains a full-time agent there for this purpose. The alleged tortious breach of contract which is the basis of this action also occurred in the District. Thus Mueller Brass Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 152 F.2d 142 (1945), is distinguishable. Also here, unlike Mueller Brass, the “doing business” is with governments other than our own. Under the eircumstances, we conclude that Napco was properly served in the District of Columbia.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashhab-Jones v. Cherokee Nation Strategic Programs, LLC
District of Columbia, 2020
Dooley v. United Technologies Corp.
786 F. Supp. 65 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Braden v. Varnell
871 S.W.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1991)
Cardwell v. Investor's Analysis, Inc.
620 F. Supp. 1395 (District of Columbia, 1985)
Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp.
643 F.2d 1229 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
Chrysler Corporation v. Fedders Corporation
643 F.2d 1229 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
Marsha Lee Wallin, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carl R. Wallin, Deceased v. Allen Ernest Fuller and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
476 F.2d 1204 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Holt v. Klosters Rederi A/S
355 F. Supp. 354 (W.D. Michigan, 1973)
Andrews v. Forness
272 A.2d 672 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1971)
Sannes v. Olds
458 P.2d 729 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1969)
Edward J. Moriarty & Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co.
289 F. Supp. 381 (S.D. Ohio, 1967)
Vogel v. Tenneco Oil Company
276 F. Supp. 1008 (District of Columbia, 1967)
Jesse B. Manbeck v. Gerald S. Ostrowski
384 F.2d 970 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)
Roger Fandel v. Arabian American Oil Company, a Corporation
345 F.2d 87 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
May v. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.
197 A.2d 267 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1964)
Oscar F. Collins v. New York Central System, a Body Corporate
327 F.2d 880 (D.C. Circuit, 1963)
Harold Noel Arrowsmith, Jr. v. United Press International
320 F.2d 219 (Second Circuit, 1963)
Della Blackwell v. Regal Cab Company, Yurrissan Carter v. Regal Cab Company, Raoul D. Carter v. Regal Cab Company
316 F.2d 398 (D.C. Circuit, 1963)
Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc.
316 F.2d 393 (D.C. Circuit, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 F.2d 393, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 392, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 49, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-international-export-co-v-napco-industries-inc-cadc-1963.