5 6 Federal; of treaties of the United States, and of executive regulations authorized by acts of Congress which have the force of statute,' and in general of all facts of which judicial notice is taken by other courts.8 of foreign nations, but not of their inferior departments, officers and their seals. Schoerken v. Swift & C. & B. Co., 7 Fed. R. 469, 471. Nor of the local laws of the various tribes in the Indian Territory. Wilson v. Owens (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R. 571. Cf. Davison v. Gibson (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 443. Nor, it has been held, of the local rules and regulations of mines even when they are recognized by the mining laws of the United States. Meyer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. R. 787. 5 Such as an act of Congress authorizing the construction of a bridge. Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Baltimore & N. Y. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 129. Lacroix Fils v. Sarrazin, 15 Fed. R. 489. not, it has been held, of the filing of the map of a railroad route in the Interior Department. McKeoin v. No. Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 464. Nor of the regulations of the light-house board. Smith v. Hakopee (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 974. Nor of the issue of letters-patent for inventions. Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne B. & S. Co., 47 Fed. R. 59. Nor of the facts stated in reports and messages of Governors to State legislatures. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 66, 94. But see Cœur d'Alene C. & M. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. R. 260. Nor of a report of a State auditor concerning the amounts of the various kinds of property subject to taxation. First Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 173 U. S. 205. 7 Caha v. U. S., 152 U. S. 211, 822; It has been held, however, that a U. S. v. Williams, 6 Mont. 379. 8 It has been held that judicial notice will be taken of a public proclamation of general pardon and am nesty. Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546. Of the acts of the Executive Department in relation to a guano island. Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202. Of proclamations concerning a blockade and of the practice in the Navy Department in regard to captures. The Paqueta Habana, 175 U. S. 677. Of the custom of issuing and dating land patents several years after the payment of the purchase-money and the issue of the certificates of entry. Bigelow v. Chatterton (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 614. Of correspondence between State and Federal officers concerning swamp lands. Kirby v. Lewis, 39 Fed. R. 66. And of an order of the Secretary of the Interior withdrawing from sale or other disposition certain public land. So. Pac. R. Co. v. Groeck, 68 Fed. R. 609. But court may take judicial notice of an established custom of State officers to assess property for taxation at less than its actual value. Railroad & Tel. Cos. v. Board of Equalizers, 85 Fed. R. 302; contra, New York v. Barker, 179 U. S. 279. The courts will take judicial notice of historical facts such as the existence of civil war in a foreign State. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250. That the Dominion of Canada is a British possession. Ex parte Lane, 6 Fed. R. 34; Lumley v. Wabash Ry. Co., 71 Fed. R. 21; but see S. C. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 66, 69. That the lands surrounding Seattle harbor have for years been selected and known as the site of a city. Ex parte Davidson, 57 Fed. R. 883. But not, it has been held, of the fact that during the civil war the courts of a county were closed. Cross v. Sabin, 13 Fed. R. 308. The courts will take judicial notice of the boundaries of the State § 265. Admissions.- Admissions upon the record are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions are made either in the pleadings or by agreement. Every statement of a fact or county where they hold their sessions, of the judicial districts and of the municipal subdivisions within such State, and of the distance from the State capital to any State subdivision when estimated by a public survey. Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401. Of the boundaries of all the States. Thorson v. Peterson, 9 Fed. R. 517. Of the boundaries of counties within the district. Ross v. Fort Wayne (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 466, 469; Bluefield W. & Imp. Co. v. Sanders (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 333. That Ashe ville, N. C., is distant more than one hundred miles from Dubuque, Iowa. Mut. B. L. I. Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 723. Of the States in which a railroad chartered by companies is situated. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 69 Fed. R. 871, 881. That a river is navigable between two important cities. Lands v. A Cargo of 227 Tons of Coal, 4 Fed. R. 478. But not, it seems, that a river is non-navigable at a certain point. U. S. v. Rio Grande D. & L. Co., 174 U. S. 690, 698. It has been held that the Federal courts will take judicial notice in collateral proceedings of their own orders appointing receivers. Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R. 559. And of the proceedings in the suit in which such an appointment was made. Louisville Tr. Co. v. Cincin nati (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 296, 318. Even, it has been held upon an application for a habeas corpus, of the affirmance of a previous order deny ing the writ to the same petitioner. In re Durant, 84 Fed. R. 314. But not in general of the pending of other proceedings in the same court. In re Manderson (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 501. Nor of the decisions upon the facts in other cases. Stewart v. Mas terson, 131 U. S. 151. And upon an appeal from an allowance of a claim in a foreclosure suit in which the appellant described himself as "the person having trustee of defendant's property," the court of review refused to take judicial notice of the orders of the court below in the same suit directing the sale of the property or of the proceedings thereunder. Fitzgerald v. Evans (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 426. The court may take judicial notice of the history and state of an art or process of manufacture when that is generally known. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Heaton P. B. F. Co. v. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. R. 592; s. c. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 520. Especially when that is disclosed by the court's own records in another case. Cushman P. B. Mach. Co. v. Gollard (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 664. But see supra, § 106. The courts will take judicial notice of the general facts of natural history. For example, that the imported native sheep of all countries produce fleeces the value of which is depreciated by an excess of hair. Lyon v. Marine (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 964. That a "whiskey cocktail" is an intoxicating drink. U. S. v. Ash, 75 Fed. R. 651. That the pasturage upon uninclosed western lands is very slight evidence of possession. Whitney v. U. S., 167 U. S. 529. But not that there is any substantial difference between lead or other soft metal when wrought or drawn. McCloskey v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. R. 710, 712. Nor of statements in encyclopædias, dictionaries and text-books which are not matters of common knowledge. Kaolatype Eng. Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. R. 444. material to the issues made in the pleadings,' affidavits, or other documents used in support of the claim of any party to a suit, who is of full age, whether sworn to or not, may be used as evidence against him upon the hearing. The filing of the general replication does not waive the right to rely on admissions in an answer or plea. The statement by a defendant that he believes, or is informed and believes, that a certain fact occurred, is treated as an admission, unless coupled with some clause to prevent its being so considered. For it is a rule in equity that what the defendant believes, the court will believe. This rule, however, does not apply to the statement of a defendant that he believes that a will was executed as charged in the bill. Admissions in an answer made on behalf of an infant cannot be used against him, unless he adopts the answer after he has reached his majority. An admission of one defendant, whether in his answer or otherwise, is not evidence against any of his co-defendants,10 who is not his partner," or who does not derive his title from him.13 An admission of facts by a demurrer is of no effect after the demurrer has been $265. No. Pac. R. Co. v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561. But see Smith v. Davison, 41 Fed. R. 172. An admission in an unverified pleading in another suit which was signed only by an attorney cannot be admitted in evidence. Delaware Co. Com'rs v. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 399. Statements in a verified pleading, verified by a party in another suit, are admissible in evidence, Balloch v. Hooper, 146 U. S. 363; Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S. 363; except in a criminal prosecution or in an action to enforce a penalty or forfeiture. U. S. R. S., § 860; Daly v. Brady, 69 Fed. R. 285. An admission that a town made a contract admits that it had power to make it. Plankington v. Gray (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 415. 2 Hyman v. Wheeler, 29 Fed. R. 347; Tugman v. National S. S. Co., 30 Fed. R. 802; Nat. S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 143 U. S. 28. Cf. Carey v. Williams, 79 Fed. R. 906. 3 Smith v. Potter, 3 Wis. 432. • Cavender v. Cavender, 8 Fed. R. 641. 5 Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Hill v. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 6 Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Hill v. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 7 Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Davies v. Davies, 3 DeG. & Sm. 698. 8 Leigh v. Ward, 2 Vent. 72; Eccleston v. Petty, Carth. 79; Savage v. Carroll, 1 B. & B. 548, 553; Wrotesley v. Bendish, 3 P. Wms. 235. See Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 680. 9 Hinde's Ch. Pr. 422. 10 Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat. 380; Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 153. 11 Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Simons, 35; Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 153, 156. 12 Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8; Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 738. 14 withdrawn or overruled. The parties to a suit may, by an agreement signed by themselves or their solicitors or made in open court by their counsel, admit any fact as proven, or allow testimony to be taken in any manner, unless they thus commit an act repugnant to public policy. Where it had been stipulated that certain evidence should be treated as if taken and afterwards a commission was issued, which it was claimed was inconsistent with the stipulation, it was held that the stipulated evidence would only be expunged by a motion before the hearing, and that an objection to it at the hearing should be overruled. No agreement between counsel will ordinarily be enforced unless reduced to writing or made in open court.16 A stipulation made by a party who is represented by an attorney may be disregarded." § 266. Constructive admissions.- Constructive admissions are those which are implied by law from a party's act. A constructive admission is made by the plaintiff when he files no general replication, but sets the cause down for a hearing upon bill and answer only; or when, in his bill, he does not expressly waive an answer under oath. In the former case, he admits for the purposes of the suit that all the allegations in the answer are true;1 in the latter, that all are true which he cannot contradict by the testimony of two witnesses, or of a single witness with corroborating circumstances. This rule does not apply, however, unless the allegations in the answer are made positively. Thus, a denial according to the defend 13 Anheuser-Busch B. Co. Ass'n v. Bond, 66 Fed. R. 653. 14 Barker v. Dixie, Reports temp. Hardwicke, 252; Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K. 353, 357; Nixon v. Albion Ins. Co., L. R. 2 Ex. 38; Lyman v. Kansas C. & A. R. Co., 101 Fed. R. 636. For a case where the court refused to relieve a party from a stipulation, see McNeill v. Andes, 40 Fed. R. 45. As to the power of the next friend of an infant to stipulate, see Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 680. As to the power of a receiver to bind the estate by a stipulation, or admission, see Bosworth v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 174 U. S. 182; supra, § 249. 15 Dickerson v. Matheson, 50 Fed. R. 73, 75. 16 Evans v. State Nat. Bank, 19 Fed. R. 676; Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. R. 434. 17 Bonifield v. Thorp (D. C.), 71 Fed. R. 924. § 266. 1 U. S. v. Scott, 3 Woods, 334; Kennedy v. Baylor, 1 Wash. (Va.) 162. 2 Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 153, 160; Union Bank of G. v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110; Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 582; Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441. 3 Carpenter v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 4 How. 185; Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumn. 228; Berry v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 286. ant's recollection and belief is insufficient for this purpose.* So is an allegation upon information and belief." By setting down a plea for argument the plaintiff admits the truth of the allegations of fact therein contained. Constructive admissions are also made by a demurrer, a plea, or a default in pleading. A demurrer admits the truth of the allegations in the bill, but not of conclusions of law therein set forth. A plea admits the truth of so much of the bill as it does not deny.' A default by the defendant's failing to file a demurrer, plea, or answer to the bill within the time allowed for that purpose entitles the plaintiff to enter an order taking the bill as confessed by him, whereupon the defendant is deemed to admit the truth of the allegations in the bill.10 Formerly in England no extra-judicial admissions of a defendant could be given in evidence unless they had been charged in the bill; but that rule probably would not now be followed here." Other testimony also, which was of a kind likely to take a party by surprise, was formerly often excluded unless the pleadings called attention to it.12 § 267. Documentary evidence in general.- Documentary evidence consists of all those matters not contained in depositions or affidavits, which are submitted to the court in the shape of written documents. The rules regulating its admission are substantially the same in equity as at common law. In equity, however, such documents as merely require proof of their execution or of the hand writing contained in them may be admitted in evidence at the hearing of the cause if accompanied by an affidavit of these facts, provided that an order, which is granted as of course, has been obtained and served upon the opposite side at least two days before. In some cases, the courts have permitted the proof of such documents by word 4 Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumn. 228. Berry v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 286. 6 Burrell v. Hackley, 35 Fed. R. 833; Burrell v. Pratt, 35 Fed. R. 834; Beals v. Illinois M. & T. R. Co., 133 U. S. 290. 7 Pac. R. Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 111 U. S. 505, 522. See § 106. 8 Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430. See § 106. 9 Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303. 10 Rules 18, 19. See SS 103-104, ch. vii. 11 See § 59, and Smith v. Burnham, 2 Sumn. 612; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 181; Story's Eq. Pl., § 265a. 12 See § 69, and Langdell's Eq. Pl, § 60. $267. 1 Lake v. Philips, 1 Ch. R 110; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 425, 429, and cases cited. 2 Clare v. Wood, 1 Hare, 314. |