What was the outcome in D'Arcy v. Ketchum regarding the enforcement of a judgment from another state?

In the case of D'Arcy v. Ketchum, the court ruled that New York did not have to enforce the judgment from another state. This outcome is primarily rooted in the principles of personal jurisdiction and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While states generally respect the judgments of other states, this deference is contingent upon specific factors like the jurisdiction in which the original judgment was filed.

In this case, New York held that the original court may not have had proper jurisdiction over the parties involved or the subject matter at hand, which would undermine the validity of the judgment. Consequently, New York's refusal to enforce the judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that court jurisdiction is properly established for a judgment to be recognized and enforced across state lines. This reinforces the overarching legal principle that a judgment must meet certain standards of fairness and due process in order to be applicable in a different jurisdiction.