for defendant, the plaintiff appeals from the same and from the order denying its application for a new trial. The rulings upon the motion for a nonsuit and to direct a verdict are assigned as error in this court.
Counsel for defendant has not argued the case orally, or filed a brief in this court, and the only ground or reasons upon which the trial court proceeded to direct a verdict in defend- ant's favor are those suggested by the language used by counsel in stating his motion to direct a verdict as above stated. We are entirely clear that the direction to the jury was error, and that the grounds upon which defendant asked for such direction are fundamentally unsound. We remark first that it was error to allow the defendant's counsel, against objection, to cross-examine plaintiff's witness concerning the laws of Minnesota regulating the rate of interest there. The witness simply testified in chief to the fact that he had computed interest on the note since its maturity, and that the amount at 7 per cent. was a certain sum, and had said nothing concerning the laws of the state of Minnesota. There were no issues in the pleadings which could render such evidence material. Where a suitor desires to take advantage of the laws of another jurisdiction it is incumbent upon him to allege and show what the laws are in such other jurisdiction, and set forth wherein they differ from the law of the forum. There were no such averments in defendant's answer, and hence all evidence touching the subject-matter was irrelevant and immaterial. In the absence of such allegations, the courts will presume that the law of the place where the contract was made or was to be performed is identical with the law of the forum. 2 Pars. Bills & N. p. 371; Cooper v. Reaney, 4 Minn. 528 (Gil. 413); Leavenworth v. Brockway, 2 Hill, 201; Forsyth v. Baxter, 2 Scam. 9; Brimhall v. Van Cam- pen, 8 Minn. 13 (Gil. 1.) Courts of one state do not take judicial notice of the laws of another state. Pars. Bills & N. p. 334; Whidden v. Seelye, 40 Me. 247; Hoyt v. McNeil, 13 Minn. 390 (Gil. 362); Legg v. Legg, 8 Mass. 99; Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend. 75. But in this case the interest after the maturity of the note was computed by the witness, and the amount stated figured at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum. This was
