Washington Law Review




Defendant, a resident of the District of Columbia, borrowed money from plaintiff, a Canadian resident, and secured the loan with a mortgage on a tract of land located in Ontario. The mortgage was executed in the District of Columbia and contained a clause by which defendant assented to jurisdiction of Ontario courts by substituted service in the event litigation became necessary. Plaintiff, upon defendant's default, sought foreclosure of the mortgage and a judgment in Ontario. Pursuant to Ontario statute, defendant was personally served in the District of Columbia with a writ and notice of the Ontario proceedings. Defendant failed to appear, and the Ontario court entered default judgment. Plaintiff then sued in the District of Columbia to enforce the Ontario judgment. Defendant contended that the Ontario court had lacked jurisdiction to render an in personam judgment. On cross motions for summary judgment, held: The personal jurisdiction of a foreign court, which satisfies the law of that nation, will be recognized in the District of Columbia if the facts upon which jurisdiction was based satisfy the minimum requirements of constitutional due process. Cherun v. Frishman, 236 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1964).

First Page