See the quotation from http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4069&context=ilj
In the case of Trammell v. Bassett0 the defendants, Confederate soldiers, acted under the orders of their captain, seized property belonging to the plaintiff. A state of war existed at the time, and the seizure amounted to a legitimate military objective. The defendants plead as their defense the orders of their superior.
The court said: We think it may be laid down, as a well settled proposition, that obedience is the first duty of a soldier. It is not for him to ask the reason for the order he receives, or the act he is to do, or to consider the consequences of the act. *** He must obey. To him the maxim of despotism, that "to hear is to obey" is more nearly applicable than to any other class of society. If such be the rule applicable to the private soldier, he should certainly be permitted to prove it in his justification. The defendants are not themselves responsible for their actions so performed, and the plaintiff must rely on his action against the officer giving the order. If it can be proved that said officer abused his discretion or acted in a manner which military necessity did not require, then he would be liable to the plaintiff in damages which grew out of such unwarranted exercise of authority."
In the case of Trammell v. Bassett0 the defendants, Confederate soldiers, acted under the orders of their captain, seized property belonging to the plaintiff. A state of war existed at the time, and the seizure amounted to a legitimate military objective. The defendants plead as their defense the orders of their superior.
The court said: We think it may be laid down, as a well settled proposition, that obedience is the first duty of a soldier. It is not for him to ask the reason for the order he receives, or the act he is to do, or to consider the consequences of the act. *** He must obey. To him the maxim of despotism, that "to hear is to obey" is more nearly applicable than to any other class of society. If such be the rule applicable to the private soldier, he should certainly be permitted to prove it in his justification. The defendants are not themselves responsible for their actions so performed, and the plaintiff must rely on his action against the officer giving the order. If it can be proved that said officer abused his discretion or acted in a manner which military necessity did not require, then he would be liable to the plaintiff in damages which grew out of such unwarranted exercise of authority."
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
