Aurrecoechea v. Bangs was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a foreign judgment could be enforced in the United States. The case involved a dispute between two Spanish citizens, Juan Aurrecoechea and Francisco Bangs, over a debt that Aurrecoechea owed to Bangs. Bangs had obtained a judgment against Aurrecoechea in a Spanish court, and he sought to enforce the judgment in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States. The Court reasoned that the Spanish court lacked jurisdiction over Aurrecoechea, as he was not present in Spain when the judgment was issued. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Spanish court had not followed the proper procedures for obtaining jurisdiction over Aurrecoechea. As such, the Court held that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the plaintiff, Aurrecoechea, had a valid claim to the land he was suing for because it was part of an 1848 treaty between Mexico and Texas which ceded all Mexican claims to lands within what is now known as Texas. The majority opinion held that since Aurrecoechea did not have any legal title or possession of the land at issue when Texas became a state in 1845, his claim could not be recognized by US courts. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and stated that under international law, treaties are binding on both parties regardless of whether they were ratified before or after one party becomes independent from another. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been no treaty between Mexico and Texas regarding these lands prior to 1845, then Aurrecoechea would still have a valid claim based on his long-term occupancy of them prior to becoming subject to US jurisdiction. Therefore Justice Field concluded that Aurrecoeche should be allowed recovery for his property rights under either scenario presented by the facts of this case.