admissible. Hard υ.
Iowa 313.

Public Statutes.

Decorah, 43 vided in the latter. Lavalle v. People, 6 Ill. App. 157.

Statutes Incorporating Banks.
of the legislature incorporating State
- Acts
banks have generally been judicially
recognized as public statutes or general
laws. Courts are bound to take notice
of the provisions of the general statutes
on the subject of banks without their
being cited in the pleadings. Buell v.
Warner, 33 Vt. 570; Bank charters are
public acts, and it is the duty of courts
to take judicial notice of them.
v. Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. 69; Bank of
Davis
Newberry v. Greenville etc. R. Co., 9
Rich. (S. Car.) 495; Gordon v. Mont-
gomery, 19 Ind. 110.

Notes of State Bank. Tennessee, being a State institution, - The bank of the court will recognize the fact of its existence and that its notes constitute a circulating medium and are of value. Shaw v. State, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 86; Hayes v. Northwestern Bank, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 127; United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 392; The People v. Hughes, 29 Cal. 257; Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519.

Incorporation of Railroad Companies. -General laws for the incorporation of railroad companies will be judicially noticed as public statutes. Or where their charters are declared to be public acts. And even when the charter is published with other legislative enactments of a public character. Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93; Heaston v. Cin. etc. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 477; Perry v. New Orleans etc. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413; Ohio etc. R. Co. v. Ridge, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 78.

Other Instances.-The general laws relating to highways. Griswold v. Gallop, 22 Conn. 208.

Statutes defining the boundaries of counties. Ross v. Reddick, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) 73.

A joint resolution which imposes a particular duty upon an officer of the State. State v. Delesdeiner, 7 Tex. 76. Foreign Laws.—Acts of a State legislature or of congress, called for, recognized or adopted by public laws of any State, will be judicially noticed by the courts of such State. Chesapeake etc. Co. v. Balt. etc. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1.

Private Act Amended by a Public One. Where a public act expressly recognizes and amends a private act, courts will take judicial notice of the existence and duties of an office pro

utes which are declared by the legislaStatutes Declared to Be Public.-Statture at the time of their enactment to be public acts will be judicially noticed by the courts. Rock etc. R. Co., 20 Ark. 204; Doyle Hammett v. Little v. Bradford, 90 Ill. 416; Eel River etc. Assoc. v. Topp, 16 Ind. 242; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. (U. S.) 227; Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. (U. S:) 152.

legislature, private statutes are required Private Statutes.-When, by act of to be judicially noticed by the courts, they will be so received. Halbert v. Skyles, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) Admrs. v. Barker, 3 Bush (Ky.) 166; Bixler's 368; Hart v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 6 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 68; Somerville v. W. Va. 336; Collier v. Baptist Society, Winbish, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 205.

Laws of Congress Controlling Public judicial notice of the acts of congress in Lands.-The State courts should take regard to the disposal of the public nished to a purchaser; and of the syslands, and of the kind of evidence furtem of surveys adopted for those lands by congress. Gooding v. Morgan, 70 Ill. 275

158

National Bankrupt Laws.-A State bankruptcy act of congress and how_it court must take judicial notice of the 361. operates. Morris v. Davidson, 49 Ga.

Even where an act of congress relates Laws for the District of Columbia.exclusively to the District of Columbia it wilt be judicially noticed by the courts of the several States. Baylys v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 284.

United States Revenue Laws.-State internal revenue laws of congress and courts are bound to take notice of the to refuse to aid parties in any attempt to violate them, whether the point is Albetis, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 362. raised by counsel or not. Ketsel v.

and Pardon.—The president's proclamaPresident's Proclamation of Amnesty tion of universal amnesty and pardon, public act of which all courts of the to those engaged in the rebellion, is a and to which they are bound to give United States are bound to take notice effect. Armstrong v. United States, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 154.

nize the legal coins made at the United
Legal Coins.-The courts will recog-
States mint pursuant to law and such
foreign coins as are made current by

United States courts take notice of the public acts of the legislatures of the several States.1 Judicial notice will also be taken by the courts of the validity and authenticity of statutes, enacted in those States where the courts are held.2

law. Hence in prosecutions for counterfeiting it is not necessary to prove that there are genuine coins of which those alleged to have been made are imitations. United States v. Burns, 5 McLean (U. S.) 23.

The Pound Sterling.-In an action on a bill expressed in English currency no proof of value need be given. The value of a pound sterling is fixed by act of congress of 1852 at $4.84, and in the absence of other evidence that act is conclusive upon the question of value and the court is bound to take judicial notice of it. McButt v. Hoge, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 81.

supreme court of the United States without proof. Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. (U. S.) 22.

Courts do not take judicial notice of a private act unless offered in evidence. Ellis v. Eastman, 32 Cal. 447

But under sec. 1875, California Code of Civil Procedure, the court will take judicial notice of public and private official acts of the legislature. People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171.

The supreme court of the United States and its judges recognize without proof the laws of the several States and territories, and also the existence of slavery in those States where it is recJudicial Notice Required by Statute.ognized. Miller v. McQuerry, 5 McChapter 13, section 4, of the code of Lean (U. S.) 469. West Virginia provides for judicial notice as follows: "Whenever it becomes material to ascertain what the law, statutory or otherwise, of another State or country or of the United States, is or was at any time, the court, judge or magistrate shall take judicial notice thereof, and may consult any printed books purporting to contain, state or explain the same, and consider any testimony, information or averment that is offered on the subject. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 28 W. Va. 16.

The United States courts take judicial notice of the acts of congress, and they need not be set forth or specially referred to in any proceeding before them. United States v. Randall, Deady (U. S.) 524; Murray . City of Butte, 7 Mont. 61; Laidey v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 607.

1. Notice of State Statutes.--The courts of the United States take notice of the laws of the respective States without pleading or proving them. Jones v. Hays, 4 McLean (U. S.) 521; Bennett 7. Bennett, Deady (U. S.) 299; Mervill v. Dawson, Hemp. (U. S.) 563; Starr v. Moore, 3 McLean (U. S.) 354; Jasper v. Porter, 2 McLean (U. S.) 579; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. (U. S.) 65: Miller v. McQuerry, 5 McLean (U. S.) 469; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 108; Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 607; and also of judicial decisions in the several States. Cheever 7. Wilson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 108; Pennington v. Gisbon, 16 How. (U. S) 65. A law of any state may be read in the

The circuit courts of the United States take judicial knowledge of the laws of all the States, and when sitting in Maryland will judicially notice the laws of Louisiana. Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 607.

Where the constitution of a State declares that every statute shall be a public act the United States courts will take judicial notice of a statute creating a corporation without its being pleaded or offered in evidence. Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. (U. S.) 227.

Certain averments in an indictment as to the existence and action of a board of inspectors of registry were held sufficient on demurrer, the court taking judicial notice of the State statute in respect to such boards, such statutes being referred to in the indictment. United States v. Quinn, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 48.

2. "Courts are bound judicially to take notice of what the law is, and, to enable them to determine whether all the constitutional requisites to the validity of a statute have been complied with, it is their right, as well as duty, to take notice of the journals of the legislature, and no plea is necessary to bring to the notice of the court facts which the court must judicially know, and in respect to which no proof can be given." People on relation of Drake . Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Coburn . Dodd, 14 Ind. 348; Board of Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 336; People v. Purdy, 2 Hill (N. Y.)

6. Public Treaties.-Treaties made by the general government with foreign powers or the Indian tribes will be judicially noticed by both national and State courts. They are public acts of those branches of the government to which the constitution has entrusted the treaty making power, and thus are as much a part of the law of the land as if enacted by national legislation. Their obligations rest alike upon the United States and each State in the Union, and as all our courts belong to a branch of the same general system of government, they should act in concert in executing a common purpose. The rights secured or duties imposed on either party by such treaties will be duly observed, as well as the date of their consummation. Those pro

33; DeBow v. People, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 9; People v. River Raisin etc. R. Co., 12 Mich. 397; Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Sparrow, 2 Den. (N. Y.)

ΙΟΙ.

Certificate of Presiding Officer of Either House. "The certificate of the presiding officer of a branch of the legislature that a bill has duly passed the house over which he presides is merely prima facie evidence of the fact, and evidence may be received to ascertain whether or not the bill actually passed. The journals of the respective houses are records of the proceedings therein, and if it should appear from them that a bill had not actually passed, the presumption in favor of the certificate would be overthrown and the act declared invalid." State on relation of Huff v. McLelland, 18 Neb. 236; Pac. R. Co. v. The Governor, 23 Mo. 353; State v. Clare, 5 Iowa 509; Green v. Weller, 32 Miss. 651; Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; Madison Co. Commrs. v. Burford, 93 Ind. 383.

Source of Information.-"We are of opinion, therefore, on principle as well as on authority, that whenever a question arises in a court of law of the existence of a statute, or of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges who are called upon to decide it have a right to resort to any source of information which in its nature is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer to such question, always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule." Gardner v. Collector, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 499; Legg v. Annapolis, 42 Md. 203; Berry v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 41 Md. 446; Moody v. State, 48 Ala. 115;

People v. De Wolf, 62 Ill. 253; State v. Hastings, 24 Minn. 78; Southwark Bank v. Com., 26 Pa. St. 446; Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Fowler v. Pierce, 2 Cal. 165; Speer v. Plank Road Co., 22 Pa. St. 376; Opinion of the Justices, 35 N. H. 579; Opinion of the Justices, 52 N. H. 622; Coleman v. Ďobbins, 8 Ind. 1".

Legislative Journals. In the following cases in Illinois it is held that the journals of the legisla

ture

must be exemplified in the record, and the court will not, of its own motion, look into them. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Wren, 43 Ill. 77; Bedard v. Hall, 44 Ill. 91; Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119. Compare with the foregoing: Pac. R. Co. v. Governor, 23 Mo. 353; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 2; Green v. Weller, 32 Miss. 651; Fouke v. Fleming, 13 Md. 392; People v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269; Pangborn v. Young, 32 N. J. 29; Root v. King, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 613; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168; Purdy v. People, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 384; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 110 U. S. 615.

True Reading of Statute.-The appellate court, if in doubt as to the true reading of a statute, will, of its own motion, inform itself thereof by referring to the original act on file in the office of the secretary of state. State v. Clare, 5 Iowa 509.

1. A treaty is the supreme law of the land by which judges in every State must be bound, and no act of the legislature can stand in its way. Hanenstein v. Lynham, 10 Otto (U. S.) 483. treaty is the law of the land, and must be so regarded by the judiciary. Doe ..den, 16 How. (U. S.) 635; United

で。

A

States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 103.

Treaty with Indian Tribe.-A treaty

visions in treaties agreed upon for the extradition of persons charged with crimes will be duly recognized.9

7. Public Institutions. Many public institutions are established by law, as court houses, asylums and public prisons. These may be accorded notice by the courts, upon the ground of their legal status, as well as upon their well known character and situation.

The universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that they were established for the promotion of learning and religion, are taken judicial notice of by the English courts.

8. Constitutional Law.-Judicial notice will be taken of the constitution of the United States, the amendments to the same, and the date of their ratification. In like manner the constitution of the State where the court is organized and held, as well those that may have been superseded as the one then remaining in force, and the dates of adoption and rescission, will be noticed.2 Courts will also recognize the common law,3 and the extent to

with an Indian tribe is like a treaty with a foreign nation as far as the power of the contracting parties is concerned, and, like a treaty with a foreign nation, is a law equally sacred and equally binding as a law of congress. United States v. Payne, 2 McCrary (U. S.) 289; Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 83; Dole . Wi.son, 16 Minn. 472; United States v. Reynes, 9 How. (U.S.) 127; Godfrey v. Godfrey, 17 Ind. 6; s. c., 79 Am. Dec. 448.

9. Treaties for Extradition. In an action against a party for slanderously charging the plaintiff with having been guilty of murder in Ireland, the court took judicial notice of the existence and terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and Ġreat Britain, and that without any other proof it shows that Ireland is a part of the British empire, and within its jurisdiction, and that murder is a crime, the perpetrator of which able to be reclaimed by the British government, and delivered up to justice by our own government wherever found within the territorial limits of this Republic. Montgomery v. Deeley, 3 Wis. 623.

1. Public Institutions. The university of Oxford may at least be said to be a national institution erected for a great national purpose, namely, the advancement of learning and religion throughout the nation. We are bound to know judicially that the legislation of parliament so deals with its title and property as best to advance the interests. the public in the two respects we have named. Oxford Poor Rate, 8 Ellis &

B. 185, 204.

12 C. of L.-II

2. The constitution is the fundamental law of the State, in opposition to which any other law, or any direc tion or order, must be inoperative and, void. If, therefore, such other law," direction or order seems to be applica ble to the facts, but on comparison with the fundamental law the latter is found to be in conflict with it, the court, in declaring what the law of the case is, must necessarily determine its invalidity, and thereby effectually annul it. De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pa. St. 18.

A court will judicially notice the constitution of another State so far as it established the jurisdiction of courts. Buffum v. Stimpson, 5 Allen (Mass.) 591.

3. Where words were omitted in the title of the enrolled and approved bill, and the court, upon judicial notice and inspection of the journals of the two houses and the original bili, as passed by the houses respectively, find the same to have been an omission, and that the words were included in the title to the bill as it thus passed the two houses: and when the omitted words do not change the substance or effect of the law, the effect of the same cannot be held to render the act invalid. Sin v. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517.

161

Common Law.-Matters of national history are recognized by the courts, as, for instance, that the common law prevails in the States of the United States which were originally colonized from England. Holmes v. Mallett, Morris (Iowa) 82.

Receiver at Common Law.- Quære