Case Name: MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CO., Appellant, v. NAPCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-03-07
Citations: 316 F.2d 393
Docket Number: No. 16988
Parties: MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CO., Appellant, v. NAPCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 316
Pages: 393–398

Head Matter:
MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CO., Appellant, v. NAPCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.
No. 16988.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 3, 1963.
Decided March 7, 1963.
Mr. Robert F. Rolnick, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Marshall E. Miller, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Alan L. Wurtzel, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Max M. Kampelman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgertgn, Fahy and Wright, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.