
    Booraem v. Merrifield.
    Parol evidence is admissible to show by the practice and laws of another State, ft is not necessary to present a note for payment, at the place designated therein, in order to maintain an action against the maker. — See Ante, 513; 2 It. 327.
    It is only the written or statute laws of a State, that cannot be proved by parol, a certified copy is the best evidence.
    Appeal from tie commercial court of Mew Orleans.
    [595] This is an action against tie defendant as one of tie makers of a promissory note, payable at tie branch of tie Planters’ Bank at Port Gibson, Mississippi. There was a general denial pleaded.
    A hill of exception was taken to tie admission of testimonial proof, or parol evidence of tie laws of Mississippi, in relation to demand of notes at the place where made payable, in order to recover against tie maker. The proof was offered to show that this was not necessary in Mississippi.
    Tie plaintiff had judgment, and tie defendant appealed.
    
      WIuM'ton for plaintiff.
    
      O. M. Jones contra.
   Moephy, J.

delivered tie opinion of the court.

This suit is brought on a promissory note of defendant, payable to tie order of tie plaintiffs, drawn in tie State of Mississippi, and made payable at tie branch of tie Planters’ Bank at Port Gibson. The general issue was pleaded. On tie trial a witness was offered to prove that by tie laws of Mississippi, where tie note was made payailo, it is not necessary to present it for payment at tie place designated therein, in order to maintain an action against the drawer. This testimony was objected to on the ground that the laws of a State cannot be proved by parol. It was, in our opinion, rightly admitted, for the objection was well founded only in relation to written laws, and the judge was not to presume without any evidence of the fact, that the laws offered to be thus proved were part of the statute law, or lex seripta of the State of Mississippi, where the common law is shown to prevail. See the late case of Wetmore v. Merrifield, Ante, 513.)

The judgment of the commercial court is, therefore affirmed with costs.  