## Facts

- George F. Underhill, a U.S. citizen residing in Ciudad Bolívar, Venezuela, operated a city waterworks under government contract and a machinery repair business.
- In 1892, a revolution in Venezuela led to fighting between forces aligned with the existing administration and those supporting Crespo.
- General Hernandez commanded revolutionary forces, defeated government troops near Bolívar, entered the city, and became its civil and military chief after local officials fled.
- Underhill sought a passport to leave Bolívar; Hernandez repeatedly refused, allegedly to compel Underhill to keep operating his waterworks and repair shop for the community and revolutionary forces.
- Underhill alleged additional harms, including confinement to his home and assaults or affronts by Hernandez’s soldiers.
- Hernandez later granted a passport, and Underhill left Venezuela; the United States subsequently recognized the Crespo government as Venezuela’s legitimate government.

## Issues

1. Whether U.S. courts may adjudicate civil damages against a foreign military commander for acts taken in an official capacity within his country’s territory during a revolution later recognized as the lawful government.
2. Whether the challenged conduct must be treated as acts of the foreign state, making the dispute nonjusticiable in U.S. courts.

## Decision

- The trial court directed a verdict for Hernandez, treating the conduct as acts of a military commander acting for a de facto government during wartime and not subject to civil liability.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding the acts were those of Venezuela and not properly adjudicated by courts of another sovereign.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the lower court was justified in treating the conduct as governmental acts of Venezuela performed within Venezuelan territory.

## Legal Principles

- Courts in one country will not sit in judgment on the public acts of another sovereign government done within that government’s own territory.
- The act of state doctrine applies where the complained-of conduct is attributable to a foreign government, including a de facto revolutionary regime that is later recognized by the United States as the legitimate government.
- Alleged injuries to a U.S. citizen caused by such foreign governmental acts generally present issues for diplomatic, not judicial, resolution in U.S. courts.
- Conduct characterized as official and public, rather than purely private or personal, is treated as an act of the foreign state for purposes of nonreview.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that U.S. courts could not impose civil liability for Hernandez’s official acts as a Venezuelan revolutionary commander within Venezuela, reaffirming that domestic courts do not adjudicate the validity of a foreign sovereign’s public acts performed in its own territory.


Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897)