
    TOULANDOU against LACHENMEYER.
    
      New York Superior Court ; General Term,
    February, 1869.
    Foreign Statute oe Limitations.—Evidence.
    In an action in the courts of this State upon a cause of action which arose in another State, the statute of limitations of such other State is not available as a defense.
    The statute law of another State cannot be proved by parol in an action in the courts of this State. The proper method is the production of the printed volume, as authorized by the Laws of 1848, ch. 312, or by an exemplified copy.
    
    
      Appeal from, a judgment and an order denying a new ■trial.
    This action was brought by Jean Toulandou against Augustus Lachenmeyer, to recover for money lent and advanced, and goods sold and delivered in the city of Hew Orleans, State of Louisiana, during the years 1858, 1859, and 1861.
    The defense was the statute of limitations of the State of Louisiana.
    On the trial, a witness for the defendant testified that he was a practicing lawyer in Hew Orleans, and acquainted with the laws of Louisiana. He was then asked the following question: “ What is the law of Louisiana with regard to prescription or limitation of actions for goods sold and delivered and money loaned ?”
    The question was objected to, and excluded by the ' court, and the defendant excepted.
    The plaintiff had a verdict, and the defendant appealed,. and also from an order made at special term denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Lauterbach & Spingarn, for the defendant, appellant.
    
      II. Morrison, for the plaintiff, respondent.
    
      
       By the Laws of 1869, ch. 883, passed May 12, section 426 of the Code of Procedure was amended so as to read as follows :
      
        “ Section 426. Printed copies of statutes, code or other written laws, and of the proclamations, edicts, decrees and ordinances, by the executive power of any State or territory or foreign government, when printed in books or publications purporting or proved to have been published by the authority thereof, or proved to be commonly admitted as evidence of the existing law, in the courts and judicial tribunals of such State, territory or government, shall be admitted by the courts and officers of this State, on all occasions as presumptive evidence of such laws, proclamations, edicts, decrees and ordinances. The unwritten or common law of any other State or territory or foreign government may be proved as facts by parol evidence, and the books of reports of cases adjudged in'these courts, may also be admitted as presumptive evidence of such law.”
    
   By the Court. Monell, J.

The statute of the State of Louisiana, in which State the cause of action in this case arose, limiting the time for bringing actions, is not available as a defense in the courts of this State (Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns., 263). It is therefore immaterial that, by the laws of that State, the right of action would be lost. If six years have not elapsed since the statute of our own case began to run, the right of action is not barred.

The evidence offered of the Louisiana statute was therefore properly excluded.

The manner of proving such statutes was also objectionable. The defense'was the “statute of limitations,” and, although the question which was overruled admitted of an answer, proving the existence in that State of some common law bar, recognized by the courts of that State, yet, under the answer, the statute was the only bar which could properly be proved ; and the attempt was to prove such statute bjparol. That probably could not be done. Until a recent period, such laws could be proved in our courts only by a copy properly exemplified by the officer having the custody of them—at least such seems to be the current authority (Packard v. Hill, 2 Wend., 411; Thomas v. Robinson, 3 Id., 267).

In 1848 a statute was passed, in this State, allowing the printed volumes of the statute laws of any other of the United States to be admitted in our courts as prima facie evidence of such laws (Laws of 1848, ch. 312).

The question was therefore properly overruled, and the judgment should be affirmed. .

Jones and Fithian, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.  