3. UNDERHILL V.

HERNANDEZ
168 U.S. 250 (1897) November 29, 1897

FACTS:
George F. Underhill was a citizen of the United States, who had constructed a waterworks system for the
City of Bolivar, under a contract with the government. Underhill was engaged in supplying the place with
water, and carrying on 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, however, Hernandez
refused Underhill’s request. Subsequently, a passport was finally given to Underhill and left the country.
Underhill brought an action to recover damages in the United States court for the detention caused by the
refusal to grant him passport, and for the assault he suffered from Hernandez’s army.

The case was tried at the Circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of New York, where the
verdict was rendered in favour of the defendant Hernandez, on the ground that “because the acts of the
defendant were those of a military commander, representing a de facto government in the prosecution of a
war, he was not civilly responsible therefor”. Underhill appealed the judgment to the Circuit Court of
Appeals where the judgement was affirmed. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the lower court err in ruling that Underhill has no cause of action against Hernandez, seeing as
his acts are acts of another government, and are not subject to the adjudication of another government.

RULING:
NO. Lower courts were correct in ruling for Hernandez, 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. 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.

We agree with the circuit court of appeals that 'the evidence upon the trial indicated that the purpose of
the defendant in his treatment of the plaintiff was to coerce the plaintiff to operate his waterworks and his
repair works for the benefit of the community and the revolutionary forces,' and that 'it was not sufficient
to have warranted a finding by the jury that the defendant was actuated by malice or any personal or
private motive.