2

holidays. The custom of the road, as to passing by on the right or left; general and notorious customs of the sea to be observed by vessels. Judicial notice is not taken of private statutes, local customs, by-laws or regulations of corporations, boards and officers." Municipal ordinances are not judicially noticed except by the courts of the municipality, unless otherwise directed by statute."

§ 297. Facts relative to foreign states and nations.Courts take notice of the existence of foreign nations, their forms of government as recognized by the executive and legislative departments, their emblems of sovereignty, as flags and seals; the status of the several states of the Union under the constitution; that they have proper judicial tribunals, legislative and executive departments; their great seals, and the general nature of their jurisprudence.

1 Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. land, 9 Ves. 347; Dolder v. Hunting409. field, 11 id. 283; Church v. Hubbart,

2 Turley v. Thomas, 8 C. & P. 103. 2 Cranch, 187. 3 The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170.

4 Workingmen's Bank v. Converse, 33 La. Ann. 963; Broad Street Hotel Co. v. Weaver's Administrator, 57 Ala. 26.

5 Youngs v. Ransom, 31 Barb. 49; Cameron v. Blackman, 39 Mich. 108; Turner v. Fish, 28 Miss. 306: Goldsmith v. Sawyer, 46 Cal. 209; Longes v. Kennedy, 2 Bibb, 607; Lewis v. McClure, 8 Oregon, 273; Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. 80; Sullivan v. Hense, 2 Colo. 424; Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 476; Sarahass v. Armstrong, 16 Kan. 192; Palmer v. Aldridge, 16 Barb. 131; Hensley v. Tarpey, 7 Cal. 288; South & N. Ala. R. R. Co. v. Wood, 74 Ala. 449; Johnston v. Wilson, 29 Gratt. 379.

6 Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286; Downing v. Miltonvale, 36 Kans. 740; Case v. Mayor, etc. 30 Ala. 538.

The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; United States v. Palmer, 3 id. 634; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475; Griswold v. Pitcairn, 2 Conn. 85; City of Berne v. Bank of Eng

8 Whart. on Evi. § 314; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382; Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328; Ripple v. Ripple, 1 Rawle, 386; Whitesides v. Poole, 9 Rich. 68; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 Tex. 639; Hoyt v. McNeil, 13 Minn. 390; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 2 H. & J. 191; Irving v. McLean, 4 Blackf. 52; Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447; Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co. 23 id. 465; Carey v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co. 5 Iowa, 357; Commonwealth v. Snowden, 1 Brewst. 218; Simms v. Southern Exp. Co. 38 Ga. 129; Copley v. Sanford, 2 La. Ann. 335; Anderson v. Folger, 11 La. Ann. 269; Boggs v. Reed, 5 Mart. 673; Newton v. Cocke, 10 Ark. 169; Thurston v. Percival, 1 Pick. 415; Mason v. Wash, 1 Ill. 16; Wilson v. Cockrill, 8 Mo. 1; Houghtaling v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84; Taylor v. Boardman, 25 Vt. 581; Miller v. Avery, 2 Barb. Ch. 582; Billingsley v. Dean, 11 Ind. 331; Champion v. Kille, 15 N. J. Eq. 476; Davis v. Bowling, 19 Mo. 651; De Celis v. United States, 13 Ct. Cl. 117; Williams v.

$298. The court will not hear proof of extrinsic facts known to the legislature or members thereof which are supposed to indicate their intention in passing a law. But circumstances known to all the public, such as what was the law at the time, or what it was supposed to be, are proper to be considered in looking for the intention of the legislature when not explicitly expressed. The courts take more particular notice of the history of the state in which they sit. "Every judge is bound to know," says Heydenfeldt, J., "the history and leading traits which enter into the history of the country in which he presides. This we have held before, and it is also an admitted doctrine of the common law. We must therefore know that this state has a large territory; that upon its acquisition by the United States, from the sparseness of its population, but a small comparative proportion of its land had been granted to private individuals; that the great bulk of it was land of the government; that but little of it, as yet, has been acquired by individuals by purchase; that our citizens have gone upon the public land continuously, from a period anterior to the organization of the state government to the present time; upon these lands they have dug for gold; excavated mineral rock; constructed ditches, flumes and canals for conducting water; built mills for sawing lumber and grinding corn; established farms for cultivating the earth; made settlements for the grazing of cattle; laid off towns and villages; felled trees; diverted water-courses; and, indeed, have done in the various enterprises of life all that is usual and necessary in a high condition of civilized development. All of these are open and notorious facts, charging with notice of them not only the courts who have to apply the law in reference to them, but also the government of the United States, which claims to be the proprietor of these lands; and the government of the state within whose sovereign jurisdiction they exist." 3

The supreme court of the United States took jurisdiction on a writ of error of a suit depending for the amount in con

State, 67 Ga. 260. It has been held in Texas that the courts of that state do not take judicial notice that the com

1 Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 15 Gratt. at p. 479.

2 Keyport St. B. Co. v. Farmers' mon law is in force in other states. Transportation Co. 18 N. J. Eq. at Bradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 21.

P. 24.

3 Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548.

troversy on the value of a mining claim apart from fee-simple rights in the suit by patent. In part the court sustains its jurisdiction on judicial knowledge that, "without interference by the national government, but under its implied sanction, vast mining interests have grown up, employing many millions of capital, and contributing largely to the prosperity and improvement of the whole country."

1

The courts take notice of the population of a state according to the results of the official census; also of the derivation of land titles. It was judicially noticed in Arkansas that certain portions of the state were in insurrection and under the control of the United States; in Tennessee, that the courts in a particular county were closed, civil law suspended, and military law in force during the civil war;' in Texas, that the government of the state was administered by military authority, under the reconstruction acts of congress, and that the military commander's orders had the force of law. Courts will notice that the Confederate currency was imposed by force, and was at great discount; the accession of persons to, and the tenure of office under, the constitution and laws; the geography and topography of the state, and its history to the extent that these facts and transactions are of public and general interest; of the boundaries of the state, the extent of territorial jurisdiction, its civil divisions created by law, and notorious surveys, streets, areas and lines.10 So the times prescribed by

104.

Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97,

2 Worcester Bank v. Cheney, 94 Ill. 430; People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 87. 3 Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157; Smith v. Stevens, 82 Ill. 554.

4 Rice v. Shook, 27 Ark. 137. 5 Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk. 546. 6 Gates v. Johnson Co. 36 Tex. 144. 7 Keppel v. Petersburg R. R. Co. Chase's Dec. 167.

State v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308; Thompson v. Haskell, 21 Ill. 215; Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17; Ragland v. Wynn, 37 id. 32; Alexander v. Burnham, 18 Wis. 199; Burnett v. Henderson, 21 Tex. 588; Dewees v. Colorado Co. 32 Tex. 570.

9 Turner v. Patton, 49 Ala. 406; Williams v. State, 64 Ind. 553; Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220; McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206; Ferdinand v. State, 39 Ala. 706; Lanfear v. Mestier, 18 La. Ann. 497; Ashley v. Martin, 50 Ala. 537; Taylor v. Graham, 18 La. Ann. 656; Andrews v. Knox Co. 70 Ill. 65; New Orleans Canal, etc. Co. v. Templeton, 20 La. Ann. 141; Buford v. Tucker, 44 Ala. 89; United States v. 4000 Am. Gold Coin, 1 Woolw. 217; Hart v. State, 55 Ind. 591; Monroe Co. Com'rs v. May, 67 Ind. 562; Hart v. Bodley, Hardin, 98. 10 Goodwin v. Appleton, 22 Me. 453; Gilbert v. Moline Water Power Co. 19 Iowa, 319; King v. Kent, 29 Ala.

law for holding the terms of the various courts in the state will be judicially noticed.'

$299. Courts take notice who are their own officers, and of their signatures; 2 and who are county officers within their jurisdictions. A court will take judicial notice of its own record of proceedings in a particular case before it. Thus, on error in an appellate court to recover a second judgment in a cause in which a former judgment had been reversed, it being assigned for error that it did not appear by the record that at the time of the second trial the cause had been remitted, the court overruled the point by its judicial knowledge of the remittitur. But a court will not take notice, in deciding one case, of what may be contained in the record of another and distinct case, unless proved. The record in garnishment is so far a part of the record in the cause that it will be judicially noticed therein."

§ 300. Judicial notice of historical and other facts related to legislation. In order to ascertain the purpose or intention, if it is not clearly expressed in a statute, or that such purpose or intention may be carried into effect, the court will take

542; Brady v. Page, 59 Cal. 52; Carson v. Dalton, 59 Tex. 500; People v. Robinson, 17 Cal. 363; Central R. R. Co. v. Gamble, 77 Ga. 584; Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Case, 15 Ind. 42; Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Stephens, 28 id. 429; Fogg v. Holcomb, 64 Iowa, 621; Board of Commissioners v. Spitler, 13 Ind. 235; Brown v. Elms, 10 Humph. 135; Gardner v. Eberhart, 82 Ill. 316; Kile v. Yellowhead, 80 id. 208; Ham v. Ham, 39 Me. 263; Buckinghouse v. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401; Atwater v. Schenck, 9 Wis. 160; Prieger v. Exchange, etc. Ins. Co. 6 id. 89; United States v. Johnson, 2 Sawyer, 482; Hill v. Bacon, 43 Ill. 477; State v. Ray, 97 N. C. 510; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452; Wright v. Phillips, 2 Greene (Ia.), 191; Ross v. Austill, 2 Cal. 183; State v. Tootle, 2 Harr. 541; La Grange v. Chapman, 11 Mich. 499; Solyer v. Romanet, 52 Tex. 562; Martin v.

Martin, 51 Me. 366; Stoddard v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 680; Vanderwerker v. People, 5 Wend. 530.

1 Lindsay v. Williams, 17 Ala. 229; Morgan v. State, 12 Ind. 448; Pugh v. State, 2 Head, 227; State v. Hammett, 7 Ark. 492; Gilliland v. Sellers, 2 Ohio St. 223. See McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500.

2 Yell v. Lane, 41 Ark. 53; Dyer v. Last, 51 Ill. 179; Hanmann v. Mink, 99 Ind. 279; Buell v. State, 72 Ind. 523; People v. Lyman, 2 Utah, 30.

3 Wetherbee v. Dunn, 32 Cal. 106; Templeton v. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 438.

4 Brucker v. State, 19 Wis. 539, citing The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 442; Cash v. State, 10 Humph. 115. See also State v. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475; National Bank v. Bryant, 13 Bush, 419.

5 National Bank v. Bryant, supra. 6 Farrar v. Bates, 55 Tex. 193.

3

notice of the history of its terms when it was enacted.1 It is needful in the construction of all instruments to read them in view of all the surrounding facts. To understand their purport and intended application, one should, as far as possible, be placed in a situation to see the subject from the maker's standpoint and study his language with that outlook. Statutes are no exception. It accords with Lord Coke's rule, and a rational sense of what is suitable, to ascertain what were the circumstances with reference to which the words of the statute were used, and what was the object appearing from those circumstances which the legislature had in view. When occasion arises for resort to such extrinsic facts, a court may obtain information from any authentic source. As was said by Mr. Justice Miller in Gardner v. The Collector," "from any source of information which in its nature is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer," "always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule." It has been held in the English courts that when a statute is supposed to have been founded on the report of commissioners. appointed by the crown, the report ought not to be referred to in a court of justice as a guide in construing the statute."

1 Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9; United States v. Union P. R. R. Co. 91 U. S. 72; State v. Nicholls, 30 La. Ann. (Pt. II) 980; Sheriff v. Caddo Parish, 37 id. 788; De Celis v. United States, 13 Ct. CL. 117; Williams v. State, 67 Ga. 260.

2 Tonnele v. Hall, 4 N. Y. 140; McIntyre v. Ingraham, 35 Miss. 25; Sheriff v. Parish of Caddo, 37 La. Ann. 788; State v. Judge, 12 id. 777; Big Black Creek, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 94 Pa. St. 450; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526; Crawfordsville, etc. Co. v. Fletcher, 104 Ind. 97. 3 Heydon's Case, 3 Rep. 7a; Case of the Marshalsea, 10 id. 73a.

4 River Wear Com'rs v. Adamson, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 546; 2 App. Cas. 764; Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 15 Gratt. 457; Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276; Fair

child v. Gwynne, 16 Abb. Pr. 23; Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, Moore's Case of, 462; Attorney-General v. Sillem, 2 H. & C. 531; Reg. v. Zulueta, 1 C. & K. 215.

56 Wall. at p. 511.

6 Steele v. Midland R. Co. L. R. 1 Ch. 282; Martin v. Hemming, 18 Jur. 1002; 24 L. J. Ex. 5; Salkeld v. Johnson, 2 C. B. 756; Farley v. Bonham, 2 J. & H. 177; Matter of Dean of York, 2 Q. B. 34; Ewart v. Williams, 3 Drew. 21, 24; Bank of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 144, 156; Arding v. Bonner, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 763; Southwark Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa. St. 446, 450. See Fellowes v. Clay, 4 Q. B. 356; Edger v. County Commissioners, 70 Ind. 331; Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. 307, 321.