## Facts

- Calvin Durand, an American property owner in Greytown (San Juan del Norte), Nicaragua, alleged his property was destroyed during a U.S. naval bombardment and burning of the town on July 13, 1854.
- George N. Hollins, a commander in the U.S. Navy, commanded the U.S.S. *Cyane* and carried out the bombardment and burning after local authorities refused demands for compensation and an apology for violence against Americans and an assault on a U.S. minister.
- The executive branch directed the deployment of a warship to obtain redress for injuries to U.S. citizens and their property at Greytown.
- Durand sued Hollins personally in trespass for damages stemming from the destruction.
- Hollins pleaded justification, asserting he acted in his official naval capacity under “lawful and public orders” from the President and the Secretary of the Navy.
- Durand demurred to those pleas, putting before the court the legal sufficiency of the “public orders” defense on the pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. naval officer may be held personally liable in trespass for destruction of property abroad when the officer acted under public orders issued by the President and the Secretary of the Navy.
2. Whether the President’s decision to use force abroad to protect U.S. citizens and property is a matter committed to executive discretion such that courts will not impose personal civil liability on the executing officer.

## Decision

- The court upheld the sufficiency of Hollins’s pleas and ruled for the defendant on the demurrer.
- The court held it is a defense to trespass that a naval officer caused a foreign place to be bombarded and burned in his official capacity pursuant to lawful and public orders from the President and the Secretary of the Navy.
- The court stated that where an executive act or order rests in executive discretion, neither the President nor the President’s authorized agent is personally civilly responsible for resulting consequences in such a damages action.

## Legal Principles

- The President, as holder of the executive power and commander in chief, may direct the use of naval force abroad to protect U.S. citizens and their property, and that decision rests in executive discretion.
- Questions concerning whether the President should interpose abroad for protection of citizens and property may constitute public political questions committed to the executive, not to be re-litigated through private tort suits against subordinate officers.
- A subordinate naval officer acting under lawful, public executive orders within the scope of that discretionary authority is not personally liable in trespass for damages arising from the ordered military action.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a naval commander’s “public orders” defense, concluding that a damages action in trespass could not impose personal civil liability on an officer for destruction of property abroad when the officer acted in an official capacity under lawful presidential and Navy Department orders issued within executive discretion to protect U.S. citizens and property.


Durand v. Hollins, 8 F. Cas. 111 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1860)