A court takes judicial notice of its own action in the same cause ; State v. Ulrich, 110 Mo. 350, 19 S. W. 656; or a state court of the decision of the supreme court of the United States settling the law of the same case; Alexander v. Gish (Ky.) 17 S. W. 287 ; of acts of congress ; Dickenson v. Breeden, 30 Ill. 279 ; Papin v. Ryan, 32 Mo. 21; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452 ; Mims v. Swartz, 37 Tex. 13 ; of the rules and regulations of the principal departments of the government under express authority of an act of congress in which the public are interested ; Caha v. U. S., 152 U. S. 211, 14 Sup. Ct. 513, 38 L. Ed. 415; of acts of the executive in relation to declaring a guano island to be within the ju risdiction of the United States ; Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 224, 11 Sup. Ct. 80, 34 L. Ed. 691; but not of regulations of the land of fice ; U. S. v. Bedgood, 49 Fed. 54. The low er courts of the United States and the su preme court, on appeal from their decisions, take judicial notice of the constitution and public laws of each of the states; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 5 Sup. Ct. 221, 28 L. Ed. 751 ; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 657, 16 Sup. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293 ; of the laws of Penn sylvania existing prior to the constitution; Loree v. Abner, 57 Fed. 159, 6 C. C. A. 302, 6 U. S. App. 649.
Without special enactment, the law mer chant, governing the transfer of commer: vial paper by indorsement, will be noticed by the courts, where such law has not been abrogated by statute ; Reed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29 ; 12 Cl. & F. 787; as will the gen eral usage and customs of merchants ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. Ed. 200 (if they are intelligible without extrinsic proof ; 23 Beay. 370); military orders of a general character within the district hi which the courts are held, when such orders affect ju dicial proceedings, and are issued by officers of recognized authority, will be noticed; New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. Templeton, ' 20 La. Ann. 141, 96 Am. Dec. 385.
Judicial notice will be taken of the laws of the United States by the state courts, as well as by the federal courts; Morris v. Da vidson, 49 Ga. 361; Mims v. Swartz, 37 Tex. 13 ; and of the state laws by the federal courts, in cases arising under the laws of the various states ; Liverpool & G. W. S. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 445, 9. Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 788; Loree v. Abner, 57 Fed. 159, 6 C. C. A. 302 ; Barry v. Snowden, 106 Fed. 571; contra (as to local laws of the Indian Terri tory); Wilson v. Owens, 86 Fed. 571, 30 C. C. A. 257 (though, on a writ of error to a state supreme court, a federal court declines to notice the law of another state, as it can not notice what the state court could not no tice ; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. 242, 29 L. Ed. 535) ; of the laws of an other state by a state court, where an ap peal may be made to a federal court on questions of federal law, such as the effect of a judgment in another state court ; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410 ; Trowbridge v. Spinning, 23 Wash. 48, 62 Pac. 125, 54 L. R. A. 204, 83 Am. St. Rep. 806; Jarvis v. Rob inson, 21 Wis. 523, 94 Am. Dec. 560 ; of the
former laws of another sovereignty when they have to any extent become the law of the forum, by subdivision or amalgamation ; as a printed statute book of Virginia ju dicially noticed as of a jurisdiction original ly including Indiana ; Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 157; or the laws of Mexico, prior to the cession in 1848; U. S. v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 452, 16 Sup. Ct. 57, 40 L. Ed. 215 ; or the laws of the colony of Pennsylvania ; Loree v. Abner, 57 Fed. 159, 6 C. C. A. 302 ; or the laws of England before the American Revolution; Liverpool & G. W. S. Co. v. Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 788.
In states where the common law has been adopted, it will be presumed that the same law prevails in a foreign state, unless other wise proved; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 Tex. 639 ; Robards v. Marley, 80 Ind. 185 ; Mo bile & 0. R. Co. v. Whitney, 39 Ala. 468 ; but courts will in general refuse to notice a Com mon-law rule different from their own ; Houghtaling v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 331.
Judicial notice will be taken of the laws of the sea when common to all maritime na tions, so far as, in effect, international' and common to all; Sears v. The Scotia, 14 WaIl. t U. S.) 170, 20 L. Ed. 822; a Canadian stat ute regulating the navigation of Canadian waters; The New Yorke 175 U. S. 187, 20 Sup. Ct. 67, 44 L. Ed. 126; contra, The Pa washick, 2 Lowell 142, Fed. Cas. No. 10,851 (semble); that the civil law is the founda tion of French jurisprudence ; Barrielle v. Bettman, 199 Fed. 838.
But judicial notice will not be taken of the laws of other nations, as of I-Iolland; 1 P. Wm. 429; of Turkey (they must be plead ed) ; Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. S. 13, 23 L. Ed. 190 (but the Spanish law will be noticed in so far as it affects our insular possessions ; Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 210 U. S. 296, 28 Sup_. Ct. 737, 52 L. Ed. 1068) ; or by the eoliths of one state of the laws of an other ; 2 Freem. Judg. § 571.
Political Facts, International Affairs, Seals of State, etc. Judicial notice will be taken of the existence and titles of all the sover eign powers in the civilized world which are recognized by the government of the United States, of their respective flags and seals of state; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 335, 5 L. Ed. 454; L. R. 2 Ch. App. 585 ; the status of sovereigns ; [1894] 1 Q. B. 149; of the law of nations; Sears v. The Sco tia, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 170, 188, 20 L. Ed. 822; of foreign admiralty and maritime courts; Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 434, 2 L. Ed. 670; and their notaries public; Nich olls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 326, 333, 5 L. Ed. 628 ; of a treaty with a foreign gov ernment ; Richter v. Reynolds, 59 Fed. 577, 8 C. C. A. 220, 17 U. S. App. 427 ; or with Indian tribes; Montgomery v. Deeley, 3 Wis. 709; of the date of the consummation of such treaties ; Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78 (Gil. 58), 77 Am. Dec. 539; of the laws and regulations of Mexico prior to the cession under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ; U. S. v. Chaves, 159 U. 8. 452, 16 Sup. Ct. 57, 40 L. Ed. 215.