A defendant pleaded infancy in an action upon a contract governed by the law of Ja maica: held that the law was to be proven as a matter of fact, and that the burden lay upon him to show it ; Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 189, 5 Am. Dec. 332.
Proof of such unwritten law is usually made by the testimony of witnesses learned in the law and competent to state it cor rectly under oath ; Seton v. Delaware Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 175, Fed. Cas. No. 12,675 ; Dougherty v. Snyder, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 84, 16 Am. Dec. 520; Brush v. Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 520; 2 Hagg. Adm. App. 15-144 ; Mowry v. Chase, 100 Mass. 79.
In England, certificates of persons in high authority have been allowed as evidence in such cases ; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 767, 769.
The public seal of a foreign sovereign or state affixed to a writing purporting to be a written edict, or law, or judgment, is of it self the highest evidence, and no further proof is required of such public seal ; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cra. (U. S.) 238, 2 L. Ed. 249; Griswold v. Pitcairn, 2 Conn. 85; U. S. v. Johns, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 413, Fed. Cas. No. 15,481, 1 L. Ed. 888 ; 4 Dalt 413 ; 9 Mod. 66.
But the seal of a foreign court is not, in general, evidence without further proof, and must, therefore, be established by compe tent testimony; Delafield v. Hand, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 310; De Sobry v. Laistre, 2 H. & J. (Md.) 193, 3 Am. Dec. 535; 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 526, note ; 221.
By the act of May 26, 1790, it is provided "that the acts of the legislatures of the sev eral states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto ;" R. S. § 905. See RECORD. It may here be observed that the rules prescribed by acts of congress do not exclude every oth er mode of authentication, and that the courts may admit proof of the acts of the legislatures of the several states, although not authenticated under the acts of congress. Accordingly, a printed volume, purporting on its face to contain the laws of a sister state, is admissible as prima facie evidence to prove the statute law of that state; Young v. Bank, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 384, 2 L. Ed. 655 ; Kean v. Rice,
12 S. & R. (Pa.) 203 ; Cochran v. Ward, 5 Ind. App. 89, 29 N. E. 795, 31 N. E. 581, 51 Am. St. Rep. 229 ; Falls v. Loan & Building Co., 97 Ala. 417, 13 South. 25, 24 L. R. A. 174, 38 Am. St. Rep. 194 ; Leach v. Linde, 70 Hun 145, 24 N. Y. Supp. 176 ; Williams v. Williams, 53 Mo. App. 617; contra, State v. Twitty, 9 N. C. 441, 11 Am. Dec. 779 ; Bailey v. McDowell, 2 Harr. (Del.) 34 ; Packard v. Hill, 2 Wend..(N. Y.) 411; Phillips v. Murphy, 2 La. Ann. 654 ; Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328, 76 Am. Dec. 269. By act of Aug. 8, 1846, a standard copy of the laws and treaties of the United States is fixed, and made compe tent evidence in all courts without further proof or authentication. R. S. § 908.
Foreign laws have, as such, no extraterri torial force, but have an effect by comity ; Sto. Const. § 1305. In the absence of plead ing and proof to the contrary, the laws of another state are presumed to be like those of the state in which the action is brought ; Haggin v. Haggin, 35 Neb. 375, 53 N. W. 209 ; Scrooggin v. McClelland, 37 Neb. 644, 56 N. W. 208, 22 L. R. A. 110, 40 Am. St. Rep. 520; Mortimer v. Marder, 93 Cal. 172, 28 Pac. 814 ; Bollinger v. Gallagher, 144 Pa. 205, 22 Atl. 815 ; In re Hamilton's Will, 76 Hun 200, 27 N. Y. Supp. 813. See Coghlan v. R. Co., 142 U. S. 101, 12 Sup. Ct. 150, 35 L. Ed. 951; San didge v. Hunt, 40 La. Ann. 766, 5 South. 55 ; Bagwell v. McTighe, 85 Tenn. 616, 4 S. W. 46. While a state court is bound to take judicial cognizance of the principles of common law as it prevails in other states, this is not true of the statutes of such states ; Sandidge v. Hunt, 40 La. Ann. 766, 5 South. 55 ; Thorn v. Weatherly, 50 Ark. 237, 7 S. W. 33 ; Con tinental Nat. Bank v. McGeoch, 73 Wis. 332, 41 N. W. 409 ; Templeton v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 50, 5 S. W. 441; Ligget v. Himle, 38 Minn. 421, 38 N. W. 201. But see Tifford v. Spauld ing, 156 Mass. 65, 30 N. E. 360. Until the fact is shown, they will be assumed to be the same as those of the forum; Harper v. Hampton, 1 Harr. & J. (Md.) 687. See 5 Cl. & F. 14 ; 3 H. L. C. 19 ; LEX FoRI.