Why was the judgment in D'Arcy v. Ketchum not enforced in New York?

The judgment in D'Arcy v. Ketchum was not enforced in New York because Louisiana lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Ketchum. For a judgment to be recognized and enforced in a different state, the issuing court must have properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the parties involved. In this case, if the Louisiana court did not have jurisdiction—perhaps because Ketchum did not have sufficient connections to Louisiana when the lawsuit was filed—then the judgment would be considered void in New York. This highlights the principle that a valid judgment must stem from a court that has the authority to adjudicate the matter concerning the parties and the subject at hand.

The other options do not accurately reflect the reasons for the non-enforcement. For instance, the notion that Ketchum “failed to provide clear evidence” is not a valid basis for denying enforcement, as it pertains to the evidentiary matters within the original court, not personal jurisdiction directly. The idea that New York does not recognize foreign judgments is misleading; New York does recognize such judgments provided they are valid under the law of the issuing jurisdiction. Lastly, the claim regarding the statute being unconstitutional does not pertain to the context of personal jurisdiction or whether the judgment itself was valid under Louisiana law