In 19 Harv. L. R. 401, it is said that, in the absence of proof as to what the law of a foreign state or country is, the court, when it takes judicial notice that the foreign state has fundamentally the same system of law as that of the forum, will presume that the law of the foreign state is the same (exclu sive of statutory changes) as that of the la* of the forum. For instance, where both states are composed of territory formerly be longing to one or more of the thirteen origi nal colonies ; see McAnally v. O'Neal, 56 Ala. 299 (raising the presumption with respect to Georgia); Gluck v. Cox, 75 Ala. 310 (rais ing the presumption with respect to Missis sippi) ; Peet v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 South. 711, 57 Am. St. Rep. 45; Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226. That the common law prevails in England, see Stokes v. Macken, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 145; in the provinces of Canada ; Dempster v. Stephen, 63 Ill. App. 126 (in Owen v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147, 32 Am. Dec. 143, the court refused to raise the pre sumption that the common law of England prevailed in the province of New Brunswick); and in all that part of the territory of the United States east of the Mississippi, except ing Louisiana and Florida, As to Texas, Florida and Louisiana, judicial notice is tak en that the fundamental law there is the civil law ; Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. King, 48 Fla. 252, 37 South. 181; Sloan v. Torry, Mo. 623 ; Peet v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 South. 711, 57 Am. St. Rep. 45 ; Simms v. Express Co., 38 Ga. 129. So with regard to Mexico, France and other foreign countries; Aslanian v. Dostumian, 174 Mass. 328, 54 N. E. 845, 47 L. R. A. 495, 75 Am. St. Rep. 348 (Asiatic Turkey) ; Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 298 (Russia) ; Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 190, 5 Am. Dec. 332 (Jamaica).
But there are cases in which the law of the forum, even though statutory, is always applied in the absence of proof of the foreign law; Burgess v. Tel. Co., 92 Tex. 125, 46 S. W. 794, 71 Am. St. Rep. 833; Pauska v. Daus, 31 Tex. 67; Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Glbver, 107 Fed. 356, 46 C. C. A. 334.
It is said that in Missouri a presumption can be raised only as to states whose terri tory prior to their beconiing members of the was subject to the law of England; Silver v. Ry. Co., 21 Mo. App. 5 (denying any presumption with respect to Illinois); Barhydt v. Alexander, 59 Mo. App. 188 (with respect to Iowa) ; Searles v. Lum, 81 Mo. App. 607 (admitting it with respect to Mississippi).
Where the law of Brazil was the same fundamental system as prevailed in Louisi ana, the Louisiana statutory law was ap plied ; Kuenzi v. Elvers, 14 La. Ann. 391, 74 Am. Dec. 434. The cases are collected in Cherry v. Sprague, 67 L. R. A. 41, where cases are also found in which California, under the same fundamental system as a foreign country, applied its own statutory law. In Cavallaro v. Ry. Co., 110 Cal. 348, 42 Pac. 918, 52 Am. St. Rep. 94, where the fundamental systems of law in California and the foreign state were'different, a presump tion was refused and the law of the forum was applied.
There •s no genera] presumption that the law of Cuba is The same as the common law. In two common-law countries the law may be presumed to be the same, but a statute of one would not be presumed to be the statute of the other ; Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473, 56 L. Ed. 274, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 40. A remedy under a foreign law where it is per fectly apparent that complete justice cannot be done, and where it is plain that an equi table result can be accomplished only by the courts of the jurisdiction where the corpora tion was created, could not be enforced in the New York courts ; Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9, 42 N. E. 419, 34 L. R. A. 757, 51 Am. St. Rep. 654.
Foreign unwritten laws, customs, and usages may be proved, and are ordinarily proved, by parol evidence ; and when such evidence is objected to on the ground that the law in question is a written law, the par ty objecting must show that fact ; Dougherty v. Snyder, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 87, 16 Am. Dec. 520; Newsom v. Adams, 2 La. 154, 22 Am. Dec. 126.
The manner of proof varies according to circumstances. As a general rule, the best testimony or proof is required ; for no proof will be received which presupposes better tes timony attainable by the party who offers it. When the best testimony cannot be obtained, secondary evidence will be received ; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cra. (U. S.) 237, 2 L. Ed. 249. A foreign law must be proved like any other fact, and in the absence of such proof it will be presumed that the common law prevails, in the foreign jurisdiction ; Roll v. Mining Co., 52 Mo. App. 60.
Exemplified or sworn copies of written laws and other public documents must, as a gen eral thing, be produced when they can be I procured ; but should they be refused by the competent authorities, then inferior proof may be admitted ; id.
When our own government has promulgat ed a foreign law or ordinance of a public na ture as authentic, that is held sufficient evi deuce of its existence ; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cra. (U. S.) 38, 2 L. Ed. 15 ; Thompson v. Musser, 1 DaIL (Pa.) 462, 1 L. Ed. 222 ; Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 203.
The usual modes of authenticating them are by an exemplification under the great seal of a state, or by a copy proved by oath to be a true copy, or by a certificate of an officer authorized by law, which must itself be duly authenticated ; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cra. (U. S.) 238, 2 L. Ed. 249 ; Jones v. Maf fet, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 523 ; Seton v. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 175, Fed. Cas. No. 12,675 ; Zim merman v. Heiser, 32 Md. 274; Bowles v. Ed dy, 33 Ark. 645 ; McDeed v. McDeed, 67 Ill. 545.
Witnesses in Cuba examined under a com mission touching the execution of a will tes tified, in general terms, that it was executed according to the haw of that country ; and, it not appearing from the testimony that there was any written law upon the subject, the proof was held sufficient ; In re Roberts' Will, 8 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 446.