The court may ascertain from sources open to all the facts of which it is required to take notice.95

§ 913. Political subdivisions

Courts take judicial notice of the boundaries of counties, the location of cities within their districts, and whether a certain place definitely located as to an incorporated city is within the county in which the court is held. They will take judicial notice that certain towns are county seats of their respective counties.97

The court will take judicial notice that a city of the state is of the first class.98

is beyond the boundaries of the state and within another state and again returns into the state. Patterson v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 94 P. 138, 77 Kan. 236, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 733.

The Supreme Court will take judicial notice that in 1885 the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company was not operating its railway in Hodgeman county. State v. Carlson, 104 Kan. 485, 182 P. 544. The supreme Court will take judicial notice that in 1885 the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company was a nonresident of Hodgeman county. Id.

The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of the permanent location of an important line of railroad which traverses the state upon a firmly established route, and that certain lands conveyed to it by the authority of an act of Congress are within the limits of such permanent location and a part of the lands granted to the railway company. L. P. Worden & Son v. Cole, 86 P. 464, 74 Kan. 226.

The court will take judicial notice of a town by a certain name, but not of the railroad station of that name, or that it is the only railroad station on a certain line of road between that point and the state line. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Williams, 107 P. 428, 25 Okl. 662.

94 The courts judicially know the standard tables of life expectancy, and, in an action for damages for wrongfully causing a death under Civ. Code, § 422, may allow them to be read to the jury out of cyclopædias of known authenticity and general use. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ryan, 64 P. 603, 62 Kan. 682.

95 The court may properly ascertain from sources open to all what knowledge can be gained as to the character of a stream as to navigability in days gone by. Dana v. Hurst, 86 Kan. 947, 122 P. 1041.

96 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Paxton, 88 P. 1082, 75 Kan. 197. 97 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Williams, 107 P. 428, 25 Okl. 662. Courts of record in any county will take judicial notice of the county seat, and if the seat of public business is the county seat, de facto, the courts will take notice thereof, and the proceedings of such court, transacted at such county seat, cannot thereafter be collaterally attacked. Board of Com'rs of Day County v. State of Kansas, 91 P. 699, 19 Okl. 375.

98 City of Ft. Scott v. Elliott, 74 P. 609, 68 Kan. 805.

§ 914. Legislature

The courts of record of Oklahoma will take judicial notice of the date of the meeting and final adjournment of the Legislature.""

§ 915. Laws and ordinances

The court will take judicial notice of a public law in effect generally throughout its territorial jurisdiction,1 and of the date of the passage and approval of general laws passed by the Legislature.2

For the purpose of construing a Constitution or statute, the courts may take judicial notice of everything which may affect the validity or meaning of such Constitution or statute. It will also take judicial notice of the abuse to be remedied by the act in question.

§ 916. Acts of Congress

Judicial notice will be taken of acts of Congress which are of a general nature, but not of private acts."

99 Lusk v. Ryan (Okl.) 171 P. 323.

1 Saum v. Dewey, 115 P. 570, 84 Kan. 811; Johnson v. Grady County, 50 Okl. 188, 150 P. 497.

The courts of the state will take judicial knowledge of the laws in force in Indian Territory prior to the erection of the state. Guthrie v. Mitchell, 38 Okl. 55, 132 P. 138.

The laws of Arkansas which were extended over the Indian territory, being in force in Oklahoma, under Const. Schedule, § 1, as to rights under Indian Territory contracts, need not be proved. Marx v. Hefner, 46 Okl. 453, 149 P. 207, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 656.

Judicial notice may be taken of the adoption of Laws 1891, c. 162 (Gen. St. 1909, §§ 9462-9464), and amendments thereto (Laws 1911, c. 326, § 1; Laws 1913, c. 324, § 1), by a county and that it was in operation in the county when certain tax proceedings were had. Brown v. Going, 150 P. 554, 96 Kan. 266. 2 Lusk v. Ryan (Okl.) 171 P. 323.

3 City of Topeka v. Gillett, 4 P. 800, 32 Kan. 431.

4 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Gist, 79 Okl. 8, 190 P. 878.

Provisions of the acts of Congress of February 20, 1811, April 8, 1812, March 1, 1817 and March 6, 1820, and ordinance for Northwest Territory as to Mississippi river and tributaries, held judicially noticed by Supreme Court. Dana v. Hurst, 86 Kan. 947, 122 P. 1041.

The Supreme Court will take judicial notice that the shipment of intoxicating liquors into Chickasha, Okl., which is within that portion of the state which was formerly Indian Territory, is illegal. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Doss, 129 P. 49, 36 Okl. 318.

6 Act Cong. March 3, 1905, approving a lease of land in Osage Nation and extending it for ten years, is a private act, of which the courts cannot take

§ 917. Laws of other states

Judicial notice cannot be taken of the laws of another state," except to aid in interpreting the laws of the forum on a particular subject, and the rule is not changed by the fact that a pleader relying upon the law of another state has referred to a particular decision of the Supreme Court of that state citing the volume and page of the reports where the decision may be found.

judicial notice. State v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 123 P. 166, 32 Okl. 607.

Where Congress puts in force a code of laws in a territory by reference to such laws, the same not being embraced in the act or by express provision made a part thereof, the courts of the other states and territories from which such code of laws is not taken will take judicial notice of every fact that can be obtained from the act of Congress, but will not take judicial notice of the provisions of the laws it puts in force; and, in order that they be availed of, they must be pleaded and proven. Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evans-SnyderBuel Co., 60 P. 249, 9 Okl. 353.

7 Under Rev. Laws 1910, § 5097, the laws of other states are facts to be established by competent evidence, and the courts cannot take judicial notice thereof. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 123 P. 428, 32 Okl, 665. Foreign laws must be proved. Marx v. Hefner, 46 Okl. 453, 149 P. 207, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 656.

Where the law of another state becomes material, it must be pleaded and proved as a fact, and a mistake concerning a statute of another state is treated as a mistake of fact. Bolinger v. Beacham, 106 P. 1094, 81 Kan. 746. The Kansas courts may take judicial notice of the common law of Kansas, and what it would be except for the state statutes and written law, and for this purpose may take judicial notice of all the judicial decisions in this country, and in all other countries which have adopted the common law of England; but for the purpose that the courts shall know as a fact, in a particular case, what the common law of some other state is, such law must be proved as any other fact. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 11 P. 408, 35 Kan. 412, 57 Am. Rep. 176.

Where defendant in an action for injuries received in another state invokes the law of such state as declared by its Supreme Court, he must show the existence of the law, as it cannot be judicially noticed, except for construing domestic laws. Ferd Heim Brewing Co. v. Gimber, 72 P. 859, 67 Kan. 834.

Judicial notice not being taken of the statutes of Missouri, it cannot be known without proof whether filing of a transcript of a justice's judgment in a circuit court of that state gives to such judgment the effect of a judgment of the circuit court. Hinman v. Missouri K. & T. R. Co., 83 Kan. 35, 110 P. 102, 21 Ann. Cas. 1152.

8 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Sealy, 99 P. 230, 78 Kan, 758.

(824)

$918. Indians

The state courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of an Indian Nation, except the laws and customs of descent and distribution of the Creek Nation applying to the distributive share of allotted lands and funds of said tribe by Act Cong. March 1, 1901.10 The Supreme Court will not take judicial notice of the quantum of Indian blood of a member of an Indian tribe.11

Courts take judicial knowledge that, by the treaties between the United States and the Indian tribes, title to Indian reservations in Oklahoma is in either the tribes, or the United States for the benefit of the tribes, and hence is not subject to territorial taxation.12

§ 919. Jurisdiction of courts

The courts take judicial notice of the other courts of the state and of their jurisdiction.1

13

§ 920. Judicial proceedings

Judicial notice will not be taken of the pleadings, testimony, or rulings in a former suit between the same parties. 14

On a hearing of a motion to confirm a sale, the court cannot take judicial notice of an order enjoining the sale, made by it in a separate case.15

The court will take judicial knowledge of its judgments and decrees.16

9 Sewell v. Setterman (Okl.) 175 P. 111.

Courts will not take judicial notice that a white woman marrying an Indian man, a member of the Cherokee Tribe, acquired the same rights as a white man who married an Indian woman, a member of the tribe, in accordance with the law of the Cherokee Nation, and that among those rights was that of segregating possessory rights in the public domain by making improvements thereon, which improvements were property subject to sale and descent. Boudinot v. Morris, 110 P. 894, 26 Okl. 768. Courts will not take judicial notice of the laws of the Cherokee Indian Nation. Id.

10 Scott v. Jacobs, 126 P. 780, 31 Okl. 109.

11 Harriss v. Leeper Bros. Lumber Co. (Okl.) 176 P. 412.

The Supreme Court will not take judicial notice of the quantity of Indian blood possessed by a party before it. Ball v. Dancer, 44 Okl. 114, 143 P. 855; Moffer v. Jones (Okl.) 169 P. 652.

12 Gay v. Thomas, 46 P. 578, 5 Okl. 1; 54 P. 444, 7 Okl. 184.

13 Copeland v. Copeland (Okl.) 175 P. 764.

14 Wyatt v. State Line Oil & Gas Co., 103 Kan. 524, 175 P. 596.

15 Thayer v. Honeywell, 51 P. 929, 7 Kan. App. 548.

16 Loeser v. Loeser, 50 Okl. 249, 150 P. 1045.

The district court of a county does not take judicial notice of the cases filed or of the subject-matter, orders, and judgments entered in suits in the superior court of the same county.17

In a contempt proceeding, the court takes judicial notice of previous steps taken in the cause and of the order which defendant is charged with having disobeyed.18

§ 921. Officials-Authority

The courts will take judicial knowledge of who are the tax assessors and tax officials within the courts' jurisdiction.19

The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of judges of courts of record in the state, but not of a special judge agreed on or elected to preside in a specific case.20 It will also take judicial notice that the term of a district judge has, pending an application for writ of prohibition, expired, and that a successor has been elected and qualified; 21 also of the terms of office of public officers, when fixed by statute.22

The courts will take judicial notice of the fact that one appearing or acting as an attorney is or is not duly licensed to act as such.23

Courts judicially know chief officers in the federal departments and their signatures.24

17 Woodward v. Panther Creek Oil Co., 50 Okl. 318, 150 P. 1065.

18 Nichols v. Quinn, 94 Kan. 742, 147 P. 1103.

19 Weatherly v. Cloworth Development Co., 63 Okl. 307, 166 P. 156. 20 Apple v. Ellis, 50 Okl. 80, 150 P. 1057.

21 State v. Shea, 115 P. 862, 28 Okl. 821.

22 Aultman Taylor Machinery Co. v. Burchett, 83 P. 719, 15 Okl. 490. It being set out in the complaint that plaintiffs were a partnership composed of W. and another, and the return being sworn to before W. as a notary public, it nowhere appearing in the record of the proceedings before the United States commissioner that W., a party plaintiff, and W., a notary public, were one and the same, the lower court in passing on a motion to quash a garnishment could not take judicial notice of such fact. England Bros. v. Young, 110 P. 895, 26 Okl. 494.

23 Nolan v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 91 P. 112S, 19 Okl. 51.

24 In re Son-se-gra's Will, 78 Okl. 213, 189 P. 865.

(826)