Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 209 views

    Underhill Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    The US Supreme Court ruled that General Hernandez, as a military commander of the successful revolutionary party in Venezuela, was immune from civil liability in US courts for his refusal to grant a passport to an American citizen. The Court held that one sovereign state will not sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state within its own territory. Since Hernandez was carrying out military operations on behalf of the revolutionary government during a civil war, his acts were acts of the Venezuelan government and not properly adjudicated in US courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Underhill Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    209 views1 page
    The US Supreme Court ruled that General Hernandez, as a military commander of the successful revolutionary party in Venezuela, was immune from civil liability in US courts for his refusal to grant a passport to an American citizen. The Court held that one sovereign state will not sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state within its own territory. Since Hernandez was carrying out military operations on behalf of the revolutionary government during a civil war, his acts were acts of the Venezuelan government and not properly adjudicated in US courts.

    Original Description:

    uiouyipoi[oy

    Original Title

    Underhill vs Fernandez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The US Supreme Court ruled that General Hernandez, as a military commander of the successful revolutionary party in Venezuela, was immune from civil liability in US courts for his refusal to grant a passport to an American citizen. The Court held that one sovereign state will not sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state within its own territory. Since Hernandez was carrying out military operations on behalf of the revolutionary government during a civil war, his acts were acts of the Venezuelan government and not properly adjudicated in US courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    209 views1 page

    Underhill Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    The US Supreme Court ruled that General Hernandez, as a military commander of the successful revolutionary party in Venezuela, was immune from civil liability in US courts for his refusal to grant a passport to an American citizen. The Court held that one sovereign state will not sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state within its own territory. Since Hernandez was carrying out military operations on behalf of the revolutionary government during a civil war, his acts were acts of the Venezuelan government and not properly adjudicated in US courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    U.S.

    Supreme Court
    Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897)
    Argued October 22, 25, 1897
    Decided November 29, 1897

    FACTS:
    In the early part of 1892 a revolution was initiated in Venezuela, against the administration thereof, which the
    revolutionists claimed had ceased to be the legitimate government. The principal parties to this conflict were those
    who recognized Palacio as their head, and those who followed the leadership of Crespo. Gen. Hernandez belonged
    to the anti-administration party, and commanded its forces in the vicinity of Ciudad Bolivar. On October 23, 1982
    the party successfully took possession of the capital of Venezuela and established the “Crespo Government” and
    was formally recognized as the legitimate government of Venezuela by the United States.
    George Underhill was a U.S. citizen who had constructed a waterworks system for the City of Bolivar under a
    contract with the government, and was engaged in supplying the place with water, and he also carried on a
    machinery repair business. Sometime after the entry of General Hernandez, Underhill applied to him, as the officer
    in command, for a passport to leave the city. Hernandez refused this request, and requests made by others in
    Underhill's behalf, until October 18, when a passport was given, and Underhill left the country.
    An action was brought to recover damages for the detention by refusal to grant passport – alleging confinement and
    assaults and affronts by Hernandez’s soldiers.
    The case was tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, and on the
    conclusion of plaintiff's case, the circuit court ruled that, upon the facts, plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and
    directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that "because the acts of defendant were those of a military
    commander, representing a de facto government in the prosecution of a war, he was not civilly responsible therefor."
    This was appealed to the circuit court of appeals, and by that court affirmed the decision. Thus, it was taken to the
    Us Supreme Court for Certiorari.

    ISSSUE: Can a state determine cases relating to acts of another state?

    RULING: (Chief Justice Fuller)

    Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one
    country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of
    grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as
    between themselves.

    The immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own states in the
    exercise of governmental authority, whether as civil officers or as military commanders, must necessarily extend to
    the agents of governments ruling by paramount force as matter of fact. Where a civil war prevails (that is, where the
    people of a country are divided into two hostile parties, who take up arms and oppose one another by military force),
    generally speaking, foreign nations do not assume to judge of the merits of the quarrel.
    In this case, the archives of the State Department show that civil war was flagrant in Venezuela from the spring of
    1892, that the revolution was successful, and that the revolutionary government was recognized by the United States
    as the government of the country, it being, to use the language of the Secretary of State in a communication to our
    minister to Venezuela, "accepted by the people, in the possession of the power of the nation, and fully established."

    Thus, "that the acts of the defendant were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly the
    subject of adjudication in the courts of another government." Since Hernandez was carrying on military operations
    in support of the revolutionary party. It may be that adherents of that side of the controversy in the particular locality
    where Hernandez was the leader of the movement entertained a preference for him as the future executive head of
    the nation, but that is beside the question. The acts complained of were the acts of a military commander
    representing the authority of the revolutionary party as a government, which afterwards succeeded and was
    recognized by the United States.

    You might also like