reported, substantially in the form, in which it now stands, except that the words, in the introductory clause, were, "Full faith and credit ought to be given," (instead of "shall"); and, in the next clause, "the legislature shall," (instead of, the congress "may"); and in the concluding clause, "and the effect, which judgments obtained in one state shall have in another," (instead of, "and the effect thereof.") The latter was substituted by the vote of six states against three; the others were adopted without opposition; and the whole clause, as thus amended, passed without any division.[1]
§ 1299. It is well known, that the laws and acts of foreign nations are not judicially taken notice of in any other nation; and that they must be proved, like any other facts, whenever they come into operation or examination in any forensic controversy. The nature and mode of the proof depend upon the municipal law of the country, where the suit is depending; and there are known to be great diversities in the practice of different nations on this subject. Even in England and America the subject, notwithstanding the numerous judicial decisions, which have from time to time been made, is not without its difficulties and embarrassments.[2]
- ↑ Journal of Convention, p. 228, 305, 320, 321.
- ↑ See Starkie on Evid. P. 2, § 92, p. 251, and note to American ed. P. 4, p. 569; Appleton v. Braybrook, 6 M. & Selw. 34,; Livingston v. Maryland Insurance Company, 6 Cranch, 274; S. C. 2. Peters's Cond. R. 370; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1, 38; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 229; Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. R. 293; Conseequa v. Williams, 1 Peters's Cir. R. 225, 229; Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187, 238; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 385; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335, 343; S. C. 2 Peters's Cond. R. 273; Picton's Case, 24, Howell's State Trials, 494, &c.; Vandervoorst v. Smith, 3 Caine's R. 155; Delafield v. Hurd, 3 Johns. R. 310. See also Pardessus Cours de Droit. Commer. P. 6. tit. 7, ch. 2, partout.
