Viterbo v. Friedlander 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 Italian citizens, Viterbo and Friedlander, over a contract for the sale of goods. Viterbo had obtained a judgment against Friedlander in an Italian court, and then sought to enforce the judgment in the United States. Friedlander argued that the judgment should not be enforced because it was obtained in a foreign court. The Supreme Court held that the judgment could be enforced in the United States. The Court reasoned that the judgment was valid under the laws of Italy, and that the United States had an obligation to respect the judgments of foreign countries. The Court also noted that the United States had a long history of enforcing foreign judgments, and that it would be contrary to public policy to refuse to enforce a valid foreign judgment. The Court's decision in Viterbo v. Friedlander established that foreign judgments can be enforced in the United States, provided that the judgment is valid under the laws of the foreign country. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been an important precedent in the area of international law.

In Viterbo v. Friedlander, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties should be enforced in accordance with its terms or if it should be voided due to an alleged lack of consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable because there had been sufficient consideration given by both parties. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that no real benefit had been conferred upon either party as part of their agreement; instead, he argued that each party simply gave up something they already possessed (in this case, money). He further noted that even though one party may have received more than what they originally put into the transaction does not necessarily mean there has been adequate consideration for a legally binding contract. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since neither side provided any new value or benefit to each other through their agreement then it could not be considered valid under existing law and thus must be voided accordingly.