Klaxon v Stentor Electric, 313 U.S. 487 (1941)Facts:In 1918, Stentor, a New York corporation, transferred its entire business to Klaxon, a Delaware corporation, with the agreement that the former will have a share of the latters profit. The agreement was executed in New York. In 1929, Stentor instituted an action in a Delaware Court alleging that Klaxon failed to perform its agreement. Stentor recovered a jury verdict of $100,000.00. Stentor moved to correct the judgment by adding interest rate of 6% from the date the action was brought. The basis of which was Sec 480 on New York Civil Practice Act.Klaxon opposed the motion to correct the judgment.Issue:Whether or not the Section 480 of the New York Civil Practice Act is applicable to an action in the federal court in Delaware.Ruling:No. Delaware is free to determine whether a given matter is to be governed by the law of the forum or some other law. Section 480 of the New York Civil Practice Act is in no way related to the validity of the contract in suit, but merely to an incidental item of damages, interest, with respect to which courts at the forum have commonly been free to apply their own or some other law as they see fit. Nothing in the Constitution ensures unlimited extraterritorial recognition of all statutes or of any statute under all circumstances.

Borthwick v. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-57338 July 23, 1987Facts:A judgment in a Hawaiian Court was obtained by Scallon against Borthwick but its execution failed because no assets of the latter could be found in Hawaii.Scallon came to the Philippines and instituted an action before the CFI of Makati seeking for the enforcement of the judgment of Hawaiian Court against Borthwicks properties in the Philippines in order to satisfy said judgment.Borthwick was validly served with summons but failed to answer and was declared in default.Borthwick filed a petition for review before the Philippine Supreme Court alleging that the Hawaiian judgment cannot be imposed against him because the Hawaiian Court did not acquire jurisdiction over him.Issue:Whether or not the Hawaiian Court judgment became conclusive to Borthwick under Philippine jurisdiction.Ruling:Yes. Borthwick was given ample opportunity to impugn the foreign judgment in the CFI. His failure to impugn the factual findings of the trial court is deemed to be an admission to the correctness of such findings and a waiver of his right to open the question.