Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (Nos. 268, 269)
1918
Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (Nos. 268, 269)
Supreme Court of the United States
1918
Case name: Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. Opinion filed: 1918-03-11 Docket No.: 268, 269 Citations: • 246 U.S. 297 • 38 S. Ct. 309 • 62 L. Ed. 726 • 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1548 Case holding summaries: • "To permit the validity of the acts of one sovereign state to be reexamined and perhaps condemned by the courts of another would very certainly imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of nations." (internal quotation marks omitted) • “To permit the validity of the acts of one sovereign State to be reexamined and perhaps condemned by the courts of another would very certainly imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of nations.” • holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government • “[T]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’—departments.” • declin- ing to examine property seizures because doing so would determine that the seizure within Mexico and by Mexico was legally ineffective • Mexican general’s seizure of goods during revolution • concluding that the action of a 20 “duly commissioned military commander” of the Mexican 21 government “[p]lainly . . . was the action, in Mexico, of 22 the legitimate Mexican government when dealing with a 30 1 Mexican citizen” • act of state doctrine barred inquiry into the Mexican government's confiscation of leather hides • “To permit the validity of the acts of one sovereign state to be reexamined and perhaps condemned by the courts of another would very certainly imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of nations.” • taking judicial notice of the United States’ recognition of the government of Carranza as the de facto and then de jure government of Mexico and consequently refusing to sit in judgment on the Carranza government’s revolutionary acts • Supreme Court takes judicial notice of Wa