foreign state. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Fields, rent rates of exchange between com2 Story (U. S.) 59. Foreign Laws Affecting Rights of a Stockholder in a Foreign Corporation.A payment of corporate debts by a stockholder in a foreign corporation will be deemed to have been voluntary in the absence of proof that he was legally liable therefor, as the court does not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Eastman v. Crosby, 8 Allen (Mass.) 206. Revenue Laws of a Foreign Country. Our courts do not take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign country; hence, a note though not stamped according to the laws of the foreign country where made, is valid here. Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 95. Internal Policy of Another State.The courts will not sustain an action on a foreign contract on the mere ground that the lex loci contractus gave an action. All questions relating to the remedy must be determined by the lex fori. Giving operation to a foreign law rests in mere comity, and no court will take cognizance of a matter concerning the internal policy of another State. Pickering v. Fisk, 6 Vt. 102. Canadian Currency-Rate of Interest. --The value of Canada currency and the rate of interest in Canada are not judicially known by courts within the United States. Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181. Of Laws of Sister States-That the Common Law Prevails in Other States.The courts of Texas do not take judicial notice that the common law prevails in the other States, but will require the fact to be proved, though slight proof will be sufficient. Bradshaw v. May field, 18 Tex. 21. Different Laws in Another State.—— New York courts will not take notice that the law of another State differs from that of New York. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Church, 59 How. (N Y.) Pr. 293. Statute of Another State Incorporating a Chamber of Commerce.-In assumpsit in Illinois, evidence of a statute of Wisconsin, incorporating the chamber of commerce of Milwaukee, and of certain proceedings before the board of arbitrators thereof in respect to the subject matter, was held inadmissible. Kelderhouse v. Saveland, 1 Ill. App. 65. Current Rates of Exchange.--Courts will not take judicial notice of the cur mercial points in the United States. The rate must be proved by extrinsic evidence. Lowe v. Bliss, 24 Ill. 168, s. c., 76 Am. Dec. 742. Of Customs.--The court will not take judicial notice of a custom for a locator to take one third of the land for his services, such custom not being alleged in the bill. Longes v. Kennedy, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 607. Location and Limits of Cities and Towns.--The courts cannot take judicial notice of the exact location or territorial limits of a town or city. Grusenmeyer v. Logansport, 76 Ind. 549. Use of a Street.-A court cannot take judicial cognizance as to how much a particular street in a city is used. Cleveland v. Newsom, 45 Mich. 62. Private Land or Mining Claim.-Courts will not take judicial notice of the situation of a private claim on land or mining ground or its distance from the seat of government. It is the duty of those claiming the benefit of any exception to the general application of any statute to make such fact appear by proof. Russell v. Hoyt, 4 Mont. 412. Military Headquarters.-The court has no official knowledge as to the location of the "Gilbean House" or of the city and county occupied by Gen. C. C. Augur. Bell v. State, 1 Tex. App. 81. Courts refuse to notice that the municipality of liberty is comprised within the same boundaries as the county of Liberty. Ryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex. 391. Lands in Certain Areas.-The court cannot judicially know the quantity of lands embraced in given courses and distances. Tison v. Smith, 8 Tex. 147. Eminent Domain.-The court will not take judicial notice that a railroad company under its charter condemned or acquired title to any particular land or strip of land. Chapman v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 18 W. Va. 184. Location of Railroad.--Judicial notice cannot be taken of the line on which a railroad will be laid out between two given points. Phillips v. Albany, 28 Wis. 340. Number of Mails.--The court will not take judicial notice of the time it takes for cars to travel from one city to another, nor the number of mails. Wiggins v. Burkham, 10 Wall. (U. S.) court cannot take judicial notice of what are fair and usual commissions on acceptances, paid without funds, but it must be proved. Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) So. Meaning of Printers' Marks.- The court cannot know the meaning of printers' marks at the foot of an advertisement, as when "Oct. 3, 4tf," cut from the newspaper, was offered in evidence to show the date and number of times a notice to nonresident defendants has been published. Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 476. Measurement of Corn--Capacity of a Railroad Car.--The court cannot take judicial notice of the rule for the measurement of corn in the shuck; nor that a railroad car of given dimensions cannot contain three hundred bushels thereof. South etc. R. Co. v. Wood, 74 Ala. 449. Organization of Religious Denominations.-The court cannot take judicial knowledge of the general organization and administration of religious denominations, as the Methodist Episcopal church. Sarahass v. Armstrong, 16 Kan. 192. "Playing Policy."-Courts will not take judicial notice that playing "policy" is playing a game of chance. State v. Russell, 17 Mo. App. 16; State v. Sellner, 17 Mo. App. 39. "Drawing."--Nor that the words "drawing" and "Kentucky drawing," designate a game of chance. State v. Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 274. Of Municipal Matters Names of Towns or Cities Adopting a General Incorporation Law.-The supreme court of Indiana cannot judicially know the names of towns or cities which adopted the act of 1852, concerning incorporation, etc., as their charter. Johnson v. Common Council, 16 Ind. 227. Names of the Townships Composing a County. The supreme court of Indiana cannot take judicial notice of the names of the townships composing a county; as they are formed by the boards of commissioners, and are not created, bounded and named by the legislature as counties are. Bragg v. Rush Co., 34 Ind. 406. Nor of the Intersection of a Street in a City with a Railroad Track.-Pa. R. Co. v. Frana, 13 Ill. App. 91. County Adopting Township Organization.-Nor that a county has adopted township organization. State v. Cleveland, So Mo. 108. Incorporation of Towns Under a Gen eral Law.-Where every locality of two hundred inhabitants may incorporate itself into a town, the courts will not take judicial notice of such incorporation. Temple v. State, 15 Tex. App. 304. Of Geographical Facts Particular Boundaries of Tracts.-The court cannot know whether or not a particular tract of land lies within the boundary line of the twenty border leagues. Edwards v. Davis, 3 Tex. 321. Town of Certain Name in Another State. The courts of Alabama cannot judicially know that an instrument declared on as made "at Virginia, to wit, Greene county," was made in the State of Virginia; but, nothing appearing to the contrary, will presume that some place of that name in Greene county, Alabama, was intended. Richardson v. Williams, 2 Port. (Ala.) 239. Time of Division of Counties.-The courts will not take judicial notice of the time of the division of counties and the erection of new ones under general law; such time, if material, must be proved. Buckinghouse v. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401. Local Situations and Distances.--Nor of the local situations and distance of places within a county from each other. Goodwin v. Appleton, 22 Me. 453. Existence of City of Specified Name.Nor of the existence of a city or town of a specified name, as New Orleans, New York, etc., in another State. Riggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 568; Whitock v. Castro, 22 Tex. 108; Woodward 7. Chicago etc. R. Co., 21 Wis. 309. Subdivision of the Refugee Township.The court will notice that the township described is a fractional one, but not that it has been nor how divided. Stanbury v. Nelson, Wright (Ohio) 766. Ferries Established by County Commissioners.--The existence of ferries, they being established by county commissioners and not by enactment of the legislature, will not be noticed by the court, but, in any particular instance, must be proved. State v. Wise, 7 Ind. 645. "St. Louis, Mo."-The court will not take judicial notice that "St. Louis Mo.," in the date of a contract, means St. Louis in the State of Missouri. Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex. 205. Nor that a note expressed as payable in "New Orleans, La.," is meant to be payable in the State of Louisiana. Russell v. Martin, 15 Tex. 238. Time Required by Express Company.Although the courts should take notice of the distances between well known geographical points in the United States, they cannot officially take notice how long it might take an express company to carry a sum of money from one designated city to another. What is a reasonable time for this is a question of fact. Rice v. Montgomery, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 75. Location of a Justice's Office-Street Number.-Judicial notice will not be taken of the locality of the office of a justice of the peace, nor that a particular number of a certain street is in a given ward or district of a city. Allen v. Scharringhausen, 8 Mo. App. 229. Land Not Subject to Location.-Nor that certain land is not subject to location because it lies under a navigable lake. Wilcox v. Jackson, 109 Ill. 261. City Plats. Nor of city plats or location of city lands. Cicotte v. Cruciaux, 53 Mich. 227. Of Historical Facts-Portions of State Held by the Forces of Either Party During the War. However extended the modern doctrine of judicial notice may be, this court cannot take judicial cognizance of the extent of military occupation of the State of Tennessee by either belligerent, while that occupation was being contested, whatever we might hold on the question after the contest ceased, and but one party occupied the country and permanently maintained that occupation. There is no room for judicial cognizance where the facts are so recent as scarcely to have, as yet, passed into the domain of history, and are so readily susceptible of proof; and being of so uncertain a character in their nature, based on the movements of armies however large, we do not think they come within the established rules of law on this question. McDonald v. Kirby, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607. Lines of Armies-In Field.-Nor will the court take notice of the lines of the armies in the field, at any particular time during the civil war. Kelley v. Story, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 202. Compare Bond v. Perkins, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 364. Facts of History as Affecting Individuals or Local Communities. There are, no doubt, cases in which courts, upon questions addressed to them, may take judicial notice of matters of general history and public and universal notoriety, which admit of no dispute; and that such evidence is only admis Depreciation of Currency During War. --The court cannot take judicial notice of the extent of the depreciation of the currency during the civil war. Modawell v. Holmes, 40 Ala. 391. Geographical Facts Not Historical or Traditional.-The court will not take judicial notice of geographical and similar facts, not historical or traditional, as the capacity of "Five mile run," in Cattaraugus county, for navigation, etc. Buffalo Pipe Line Co. v. New York etc. R. Co., 10 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 107. Texas Cattle-Communication of Disease. Nor that during certain seasons of the year Texas cattle are liable to communicate disease. Bradford '. Floyd, 80 Mo. 207. Value of Lead Ore.--Nor of the market value of lead ore. Cook v. Decker, 63 Mo. 328. Mining Districts.--Nor of the usages and customs of mining districts. Sullivan v. Heuse, 2 Colo. T. 424. Growth of Trees.-Nor that concentric circles or layers in the trunk of a tree each mark a year's growth. Patterson v. McCausland, 3 Bland (Md.) 69. Kerosene Oil.-That kerosene oil is a refined coal oil or a refined earth oil, are not facts to be judicially noticed. Bennett v. North British etc. Ins. Co., 8 Daly (N. Y.) 471. Consequence of Attack on Fort Sumter.--On April 16th, 1861, a court in this State could not, by judicial cognizance, based on newspaper reports that Fort Sumter had been fired upon on April 12th, assume that war existed between the United States and Confederate States. Held, in a suit on a promissory note, where defendants pleaded that the real plaintiffs were alien enemies, the court said: "If congress, when it acts, should declare the war to have existed anterior to its dec- tine. In an action on an insurance laration; and, if the question should policy to recover for a loss, the court be subsequently before them, the courts will not take judicial notice that gin will follow the declaration and take and turpentine are inflammable liquids, judicial notice of its existence from the within the meaning of that term as it is time thus fixed. But for them to at- used in a clause providing that the poltempt to declare its existence as a mat- icy shall be void, etc. Mosley v. Verter of legal knowledge, before any action mont Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142. has been taken by the war making power, would be a most flagrant violation of duty. This was not done by the congress of the Confenderate States until subsequently to the time when, it is urged, the district court should have said, as a matter of judicial knowledge, that the war had commenced." Bishop v. Jones, 28 Tex. 294. Of Officers-That Judge Was Prosecuting Attorney When Indictment Was Found. In a criminal cause, where the prosecuting attorney, who held office when the indictment was found, came upon the bench when the case was tried, the court does not judicially know that the prosecuting attorney and presiding judge are one and the same person. Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190. See Com. v. Fay, 126 Mass. 235; Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa 486. Deputies. Where a deputy sheriff is not commissioned in the name of the State, or required by the statute to take any oath of office, the court will not take notice of who may hold this office. Land v. Patterson. Minor (Ala.) 14; State Bank v. Curran, 10 Ark. (5 Eng.) 142. We do not understand the rule to be that courts take judicial notice of the official character of a deputy marshal. Ward 7. Henry, 19 Wis. 76; Potter v. Luther, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 431. Constables. Where constables are appointed by the town authorities, their official character will not be officially presumed by the courts. Broughton v. Blackman, i D. Chip. (Vt.) 109. Only Officers Authorized by Law.-In Texas notice will not be taken of any person as an officer unless enumerated in the code; applied to a deputy marshal of a municipal corporation. Alford v. State, 8 Tex. App. 545. Of Judicial Proceedings-Jury Cannot Notice Facts of History.-The jury cannot take judicial notice of the facts of history, but some proof thereof must be given; therefore, on an appeal from a nonsuit, the appellate court cannot take notice of historical facts not put in evidence before the jury. McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206. Inflammability of Gin and Turpen Legitimate Modes of Expending Money to Procure Legislation.-The court has no judicial knowledge whether or not there are proper and legitimate modes of expending money in procuring the passage of an act of the legislature; and, therefore, it cannot say that an averment in an answer of such expenditure, with such purpose and result, is either immaterial or vicious. Judah v. Trustees etc.. 16 Ind. 56. Pendency of Suit.-If two corporations each commence proceedings against the same person in the same court, for the condemnation of the same lands, the court cannot, of its own motion, in one action, take judicial notice of the pendency of the other, and refuse to take any action in the matter, on the ground of the pendency of the other action. Lake Merced Water Co. v. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215. Neither the supreme court nor the district court will take judicial notice of proceedings pending in the United States court for confirmation of a Pueblo title, unless it is stated in the pleadings. Vassault v. Seitz, 31 Cal. 226. Record in Another Case in Same Court.-In the trial of a case the court cannot take judicial notice of the record in another case in the same court without its formal introduction in evidence, much less can it take such notice of a case in a different court without proof. People v. De La Guerra, 24 Cal. 73. Affidavit of a Party Admitted in Another Cause. A court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that an affidavit of a party had been admitted in another cause to which he was not a party; nor can it be admitted in evidence upon the ground that the court remembers that it would be evidence in the case at bar. Baker v. Mygatt, 14 Iowa 131. See Enix v. Miller, 54 Iowa 551. A judge sitting in one county cannot take judicial notice of a conviction or nol. pros. previously had before him in another county. State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. 674. Value of Attorney's Services.-An appellate court cannot take judicial cognizance of the value of an attorney's courts may not, in all cases, very clearly appear,1 upon the whole, services by looking at his argument as shown in the printed reports. Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227. Organization of Company.-Although the court knows judicially all the statutes under which plank road companies are organized, yet it cannot know judicially under which one any particular company was organized, or whether it has not adopted the provisions of some other act. Danville etc. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456. Act Relating to Inferior Courts-Supreme Court.-An act which requires the courts of the county in which the articles of an association are recorded to take judicial notice of the existence of corporations formed for such purposes, does not require the supreme court to take such notice. Cicero etc. Draining Co. v. Craighead, 28 Ind. 274. The value of the notes of the Bank of the Commonwealth, at any particular time, is not judicially noticed. Feemster v. Ringo, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 336. Rules of District Courts.-The supreme court cannot give judicial notice of the rules of the district courts. When a party relies on such rules he should have them incorporated in the record. Cutter v. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178. Case Connected with One Formerly Decided. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the supreme court cannot take judicial notice that a case before the court had connection with with one formerly decided by it. Banks v. Burnam, 61 Mo. 76. Military Orders.-The court cannot take judicial notice of the military orders extending the time for a stay of execution on judgments. Johnston v. Wilson, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 379. Proceedings in Bankruptcy.-A State court is not required to notice judicially that proceedings in bankruptcy have been instituted by or against parties to a suit pending therein. Esterbrook etc. Mfg. Co. v. Ahern 30 N. J. Eq. 341. Impossibility of Crime.—Where, in an action for slander, it was claimed that the crime charged by the slanderous words was impossible, the court refused to take judicial knowledge of the fact, using the following language: “Whether the words in the case at bar imply an impossible fact, or impute an impossible crime, we are not able to say. Whether it is physically impossible for sexual connection to take place between a dog and a woman, and whether. could such connection take place, it is a physical impossibility that conception should follow, we are not advised. If such be the case, we do not think it is generally known to the people. They are presumed, bound, indeed, to know the law, but not philosophic or scientific facts and principles. Hence we think the injury to the plaintiff may not be affected by the truth or falsity of such facts and principles, and that this action may well lie." Ansman v. Veal, Io Ind. 355. Abbreviations.-The petition filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, prior to taking depositions to perpetuate testimony, gave defendant's name as "C. B. & Q. R. R. Co." and stated that plaintiff expected to bring an action against the same. A paper was filed, with cross interrogatories_attached, signed "C. B. & Q. R. R. Co." Held, that the court could not take judicial notice that the letters "C. B. & QR. R. Co." constituted the name of the defendant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, and that defendant was not properly made a party to the proceedings to perpetuate testimony. Accola v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 70 Iowa 185. See ABBREVIATIONS, vol. I, p. 15. 1. Individual Loyalty to the Union.— No judicial notice can be taken that any inhabitant of a State in insurrection against the government in the civil war maintained a loyal adhesion to the Union and the constitution, or that any part of such State was occupied and controlled by the forces of the United States, or that any particular person had a licence or permit from the president to trade. Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124. Jurisdiction of Foreign Officers.-The courts cannot take judicial notice of the clerks of foreign courts or their forms; and, therefore, cannot know that an affidavit purporting to have been made and subscribed before the clerk of the court of common pleas of Richland county, Ohio, or his deputy clerk, was taken before that officer, or that he had authority to administer oaths. Ex parte Jones, 66 Ala. 202. That the office of an insurance company is a banking house, cannot be judi |