
    JEAN TOULANDON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUGUST LACHENMEYER, Defendant and Appellant.
    The Statute of Limitations of another of the States of the Union is not a bar to an action in this State. J5Celdy also, that such statute cannot be proved by parol.
    
    Before Monell, Jones, and Fithian, JJ.
    
      [Decided February 12, 1869.]
    This case was tried before Hr. Justice Jones and a jury.
    Action 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.
    Defence, Statute of Limitations of the State of Louisiana.
    On the trial, á witness for the defendant testified that he was a practising lawyer in Hew Orleans, and acquainted with the laws of Louisiana. He was then ashed 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.
    
      Mr. E. Lauterbach for appellant.
    
      Mr. H. Morrison for respondent.
   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 defence in the courts of this State (Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 John R., 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 State 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 defence 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 by parol. 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 Statue, allowing the printed volumes of the statute laws of any other of the United States to be admitted in our courts asprima facie evidence of such laws (Sess. Laws, 1848, chap. 312).

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