In the 1906 case of Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Campbell & Go Tauco, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an unpaid debt between two international trading companies. The plaintiff, Behn, Meyer & Co., was a German company that had sold goods to the defendant's firm in Manila and claimed they were not paid for these goods. However, the defendants argued that their business partner who ordered those goods did so without their knowledge or consent and therefore they should not be held responsible for his debts. The court ruled in favor of Behn, Meyer & Co., stating that even though one partner acted without authority from other partners in ordering those goods but as long as he appeared to third parties (like Behn) to have such authority due to his position within the partnership structure then any contracts he entered into would bind all partners equally under law. This ruling reinforced legal principles around 'apparent authority' within partnerships - where if someone appears on reasonable grounds to be acting with authority on behalf of a partnership then any agreements made are binding upon all members regardless of whether actual internal permission was given.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Campbell & Go Tauco argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of international law and comity among nations. The dissent contended that a foreign judgment should be recognized and enforced unless it is shown to have been rendered under circumstances which would justify its impeachment for fraud or want of jurisdiction, neither of which were proven in this case. It further criticized the majority's reliance on an alleged defect in personal service as grounds for refusing enforcement, arguing that such defects are generally considered immaterial if not raised at trial by the defendant himself - something he failed to do here because he had left his domicile without leaving any representative behind him who could receive process on his behalf. Finally, it objected to what it saw as an unwarranted intrusion into matters properly within the domain of another sovereign nation.