FOREIGN LAW. The laws of a foreign country.
The courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; and they must, therefore, be proved as matters of fact; 4 Mood. Parl. Cas. 21; Armendiaz v. De La Serna, 40 Tex. 291; Territt v. Woodruff, 19 Vt. 182 ; Chou teau v. Pierre, 9 Mo. 3; Patterson v. Carrell, 60 Ind. 128; Champion v. Wilson, 64 Ga. 184 ; Legg v. Legg, 8 Mass. 99; Brackett v. Nor ton, 4 Conn. 517, 10 Am. Dec. 179; Phillips v. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.) 158, 36. Am. Dec. 158; Dakin v. Pomeroy, 9 Gill (Md.) 1; and pleaded ; Crosby v. R. Co., 158 Fed. 144; written laws, by the text, or a collection printed by authority, or a copy certified by a proper officer, or, in their absence, perhaps, by the opinion of experts as secondary evi dence; Story, Conti. Laws § 641; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 486; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.) 426, 14 L. Ed. 472 ; 8 Ad. & E. 208; Lincoln v. Battele, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475; Inge v. Mur phy, 10 Ala. 885; Burton v. Anderson, 1 Tex. 93; Clarke v. Bank, 10 Ark. 516, 52 Am. Dec. 248; they may be construed with the aid of text-books as well as of experts; The Pawa shick, 2 Low. 142, Fed. Cas. No. 10,851; where experts are called, the sanction of an oath is said to be required; Brackett v. Nor ton, 4 Conn. 517, 10 Am. Dec. 179; Dyer v. Smith, 12 Conn. 384. See State v. Rood, 12 Vt. 396; Story, Confi. Laws § 641; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 488, note. As to the manner of proving unwritten laws of foreign countries, the de cisions show a divergence of opinion ; the rule, as laid down by Lowell, J., in the case of The Pasha wick, 2 Low. 142, Fed. Cas. No. 10,851 where the reasoning of Lord Stowell, in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Consist 54, is cited with approval, is, that the un written law of England may be proved in the United States courts not by experts only, but also by text-writers of authority, and by the printed reports of adjudged cases; Whart. Ev. § 300. But mere citations of English statutes and authorities cannot be accepted as proving English laws; Dicker son v. Matheson, 50 Fed. 73. But in respect to the laws of other foreign countries, where a system obtains wholly different from our own, the rigid proof by the testimony of ex perts alone should be insisted on. See 11 Cl. & F. 85; 1 Wall. Jr. C. C. 47; Brush V. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 507; as to who can prove such laws; Hall v. Costello, 48 N.
H. 176, 2 Am. Rep. 207; Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 395, 3 Am. Dec. 336; Isa bella v. Pecot, 2 La. Ann. 391. It need not be a lawyer ; Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 74 Ill. 197; Pickard v. Bailey, 26 N. H. 152; Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 788; 8 C. B. 812. The United States courts take judicial notice of the laws of every state; Breed v. R. Co., 35 Fed. 642; whether depending upon statutes or upon judicial opinions and without plea or proof ; Lamar v. Micou, 114 U. S. 223, 5 Sup. Ct. 857, 29 L. Ed. 94; but the decisions of the various state courts are not harmonious on this point as far as regards the laws of each other. In Tennessee; Hobbs v. R. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 873; and Rhode Island ; Paine v. Ins. Co., 11 R. I. 411; the courts will take judicial notice of the laws of sister states; in Illinois, of the jurisdiction of courts in other states; Rae v. Hulbert, 17 Ill. 577; and the supreme court has decided that where a state recognizes acts done in pursuance of the laws of another state, the courts of the first state should take judicial cognizance of such laws so far as may be necessary to judge of the acts alleged to be done under them; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 513, 19 L. Ed. 426. Where a statute of another state has been properly brought to the notice of the court, it will in all future cases take notice of that statute and presume the law of the foreign state to be the same until some change is shown ; Graham v. Williams, 21 La. Ann. 594; Coch ran v. Ward, 5 Ind. App. 89, 29 N. E. 795, 31 N. E. 581, 51 Am. St. Rep. 229. In Pennsyl vania it has been held that the courts should take notice of the local laws of a sister state in the same manner as the supreme court of the United States would do on a writ of er ror to a judgment ; Ohio v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. 479; but see, contra, Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328, 76 Am. Dec. 269; 20 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 385. A copy of the authorized statute-book is recognized as proof of a foreign law; Mul len v. Morris, 2 Pa. 85; and the construction of those statutes may be proved either by the reports of cases, or by one familiar therewith ; Bollinger v. Gallagher, 163 Pa. 245, 29 At]. 751, 43 Am. St. Rep. 791.