
    Russell & Baird v. Martin & Smith.
    Where the plaintiffs, describing themselves as merchants and partners, doing bu- • siness in “ the city of Philadelphia and State of Pennsylvania,” sued the defendants on a note given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, dated “ Philadelphia, and payable at a house in “Hew Orleans, La.,” and there was no further allegation as to where Philadelphia or Hew Orleans was situated, and the plaintiff had judgment for the legal rate of interest in this State, on error, the judgment was affirmed with damages, on the ground that the Court could not know judicially that anote payable in “Hew Orleans, La.,” is payable in the State of Louisiana.
    Error from Gonzales. Suit by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, on the promissory note of the former, payable to the latter at a house in “ New Orleans, La.” The note was dated at Philadelphia, and was made part of the petition. The plaintiffs described themselves as merchants and partners, doing business in “ the city of Philadelphia and State of Pennsylvania.” There were no further allegations as to the place where the note was made or payable. The defendants answered. A jury was waived and the case submitted to the Court; judgment for the plaintiff for principal of the note, and interest at eight per cent, per annum.
    
      Milla, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      J. Ireland, for defendants in error.
    “New Orleans, La.,” will not inform the Court that it is beyond the limits of Texas. (Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex. R. 205.) We suggest delay.
   Lipscomb, J.

The only point in this case is, can the Court judicially know that a note payable in New Orleans, La., is payable in the State of Louisiana. The question was directly decided in the negative in the case of Ellis v. Park, (8 Tex. R . 205.) The judgment is affirmed with damages.

Affirmed with damages.  