In the case of Wetmore v. Markoe (1904), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a judgment made in one state, based on that state's laws, could be enforced in another state with different laws. The dispute originated from an inheritance issue where Mr. Wetmore, a resident of New York, claimed he had not received his rightful share under the will of his late brother who resided and died in St Thomas Island which was governed by Danish law at that time. The court ruled against Mr. Wetmore stating that while judgments are generally given full faith and credit across states as per Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution; this principle does not apply when it comes to enforcing foreign country’s law within United States jurisdiction unless there is treaty obligation or comity between nations involved. This ruling established important precedent for interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments: While courts should respect decisions made by their counterparts in other jurisdictions as much as possible, they are not required to enforce those decisions if they conflict with local laws or public policy.

In the dissenting opinion for Wetmore v. Markoe, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed creditors in Minnesota to seize assets from a debtor who had moved to St. Thomas, then under Danish rule. He argued that this violated principles of international law and comity because it failed to respect the jurisdiction of foreign courts over property within their territories. Furthermore, he contended that such actions could potentially lead to diplomatic conflicts if other nations followed suit by disregarding U.S jurisdiction over properties located in America. Lastly, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect American citizens living abroad whose properties could be seized by foreign creditors without any recourse or protection from U.S laws and courts.