III. Presumptions and burden of proof. a. In general. c. Presumptions are never allowed against ascertained or established facts. Hopkins v. Heywood, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 710, 86 Vt. 486, 86 Atl. 305. d. Where there is direct and positive proof of a fact there is no room for a presumption. Halverson v. Blosser, L.R.A. 1918B, 498, 101 Kan. 683, 168 Pac. 863. e. A fact may, in the absence of evidence, be presumed from the existence of other facts and circumstances, but there is no place for the presumption where there is direct and positive proof of the fact. Halverson v. Blosser, L.R.A.1918B, 498, 101 Kan. 683, 168 Pac. 863. but where there are conflicting presumptions, one is not, as matter of law stronger or weaker than another. Turner v. Williams, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1199, 202 Mass. 500, 89 N. E. 110. p. A presumption operates to relieve the party in whose favor it operates from going forward in argument or evidence, and serves the purpose of a prima facie case until the other party has gone forward with his evidence, but, in itself, it is not evidence, and involves no rule as to the weight of evidence necessary to meet it. Kilgore v. Gannon, L.R.A.1917E, 530, 185 Ind. 682, 114 N. E. 446. q. A presumption is not retrospective. State v. Durein, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 908, 70 Kan. 1, 78 Pac. 152. f. Presumptions are indulged to supply the place of facts; they are never allowed against ascertained and established facts. When these appear, presumptions disappear. r. The normal office of a disputable preDuggan v. Bay State Street R. Co. L.R.A. sumption of law is to fix the burden of 1918E, 680, 230 Mass. 370, 119 N. E. 757. proof, not to modify the acceptance of evig. There can be no presumption to sus-dence when resort is had to evidence. State tain an illegal act. State ex rel. Phelan v. v. Quigley, 67 L.R.A. 322, 26 R. I. 263, 58 Walsh, 17 L.R.A. 364, 62 Conn. 260, 25 Atl. Atl. 905. 1. h. The basing of one presumption upon another is a violation of the rules of evidence. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. AshtonWhyte-Skillicorn Co. L.R.A.1917C, 768, 49 Utah, 82, 162 Pac. 83; Hays v. Hogan, L.R.A.1918C, 715, 273 Mo. 1, 200 S. W. 286. i. A presumption must be based upon a fact, and not upon inference or upon another presumption. Hays v. Hogan, L.R.A. 1918C, 715, 273 Mo. 1, 200 S. W. 286. j. The presumption where the court is short of evidence or information to determine the sufficiency of an act, fact or condition, is that it is sufficient and regular. Spaeth v. Kouns, L.R.A.1915E, 271, 95 Kan. 320, 148 Pac. 651. k. Presumption is a principle of law by which, for the furtherance and support of right, facts not established by positive eviinferred from circumstances. Schmidt v. Missouri P. R. Co. 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 196, 191 Mo. 215, 90 S. W. 136. dence are 1. It is the policy of courts to assume every reasonable position possible and tenable, with the view to aiding the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of good government. Ex parte Winters, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1087, 10 Okla. Crim. Rep. 592, 140 Pac. 164. m. Presumptions arise from the doctrine of probabilities. Judson v. Giant Powder Co. 29 L.R.A. 718, 107 Cal. 549, 40 Pac. 1020. n. A presumption of law requires that a particular inference must be drawn from an ascertained state of facts while a presumption of fact, leaves the trial court at liberty to infer certain conclusions from a certain set of circumstances but does not compel it to do so. Platt v. Elias, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 554, 186 N. Y. 374, 79 N. E. 1. s. The burden of proof on any issue is always contrary to the presumption. One who disputes the presumption must take the burden. State v. Quigley, 67 L.R.A. 322, 26 R. I. 263, 58 Atl. 905. t. A preponderance of the evidence is the weight of evidence, the burden of proof is a rule of practice fixing the order of proof. Welch v. Creech, L.R.A.1918A, 353, 88 Wash. 429, 153 Pac. 355. u. A material fact, if not alleged, is presumed not to exist. State ex rel. Otero De Burg v. Water Supply Co. L.R.A.1915A, 246, 19 N. M. 36, 140 Pac. 1059. v. A fact which is not made an issue by the pleading need not be proven. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Tisdale, 4 L.R.A. 545, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W. 900. w. Where a cause of action is jointly prosecuted against two, if the burden of proof is on plaintiff as to either of them the court may give him the burden in the whole case. New Ellerslie Fishing Club v. Stewart, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 475, 123 Ky. 8, 93 S. W. 598. x. "Burden of proof" has two distinct meanings, one referring to the duty of establishing the truth of a given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case in which the issue arises, and the other referring to the duty of producing evidence at the beginning, or at any subsequent stage of the trial, in order to make or meet a prima facie case. Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Mee, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 725, 218 Ill. 9, 75 N. E. 800. y. To make applicable to one suffering from a shot wound, and weakened by disease so that he was too weak to sign his name, and who is alleged to have made statements in answer to questions propounded to him, the rule as to presumptions 0. Presumptions are rules of convenience arising against one accused of crime from based upon experience or public policy, and statements made against himself, he must established to facilitate the ascertainment be found to have been in such condition of of truth in the trials of causes. There are mind and body as to have been able to know a few instances of conclusive presumption; the statement he was making, and to un L.R.A. Comb. Dig.-246. II. Presumptions and burden of proof. a. In general. § 93. Shifting of burden of proof. 200 c-f. As to sanity of accused, see post, § 202 h-k. As to fraud, see post, § 225 i. As to guilt or innocence, see post, § 242 1. As to cause of loss of property, see post, § 268 h. As to negligence, see post, §§ 276 w2, x, 277 j1, 329 f. As to good faith of purchaser of negotiable paper, see post, § 429 j-1. As to payment of debt, see post, § 492 c. Weight of presumption until overcome by other evidence, see post, § 1414 f. Sufficiency of evidence in case of party having burden of proof, see post, § 1415. In action against bailee for loss of, or injury to goods, see BAILMENT, § 9 r. See also post, § 115 e. h. An admission changes the burden of proof in the sense that the plea of confession and avoidance must be sustained by the weight or preponderance of the evidence; a presumption simply changes the order of proof to the extent that one upon whom it bears must meet or explain it away and when such an explanation is made the duty is upon the plaintiff to take up the burden which the law has cast upon him and sustain the issue by a preponderance of the evidence. Welch v. Creech, L.R.A.1918A, 353, 88 Wash. 429, 153 Pac. 355. i. In an action for wrongful death by intentionally killing plaintiff's intestate, where self-defense is pleaded, plaintiff must first establish his case by proper and sufficient proof, and defendant then has the burden of establishing his justification or excuse. Suell v. Derricott, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 996, 161 Ala. 259, 49 So. 895. b. Laws; ordinances; Constitution. a. The burden of proof never shifts. Star-§ 94. Generally. ratt v. Mullen, 2 L.R.A. 697, 148 Mass. 570, 20 N. E. 178. b. The burden of proof never shifts in the trial of a lawsuit, although the burden of evidence may do so. Lebens v. Wolf, L.R.A.1918C, 868, 138 Minn. 435, 165 N. W. 276. c. Accurately speaking, the burden of proof never shifts in the trial of a law suit. The burden of evidence may shift. When the testimony is all in, the preponderance thereof must be in favor of that litigant who, under the pleadings and the nature of the cause of action or defense, has the burden of proof; otherwise the decision will go to the other party. Lebens v. Wolf, L.R.A.1918C, 868, 138 Minn. 435, 165 N. W. 276. d. The burden of proving the issue, devolved upon a party, never shifts, although the burden of producing evidence to satisfy the court or jury may shift during the trial. McAdams v. Bailey, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1003, 169 Ind. 518, 82 N. E. 1057. e. The burden of persuading the trier of facts of the truth of essential allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action or defense never shifts, although the duty of going forward with evidence may shift from time to time. Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co. 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 954, 103 Minn. 150, 114 N. W. 733. f. A party is always and continuously bound to prove his side of the case if he is met with a traverse. Baxter v. Camp, 42 L.R.A. 514, 71 Conn. 245, 41 Atl. 803. Presumption of knowledge of, see post, §§ 179, 180. Presumption as to legislature's knowledge of historical facts, see post, § 181 e. Presumption and burden of proof as to legislative intent, see post, § 206. Presumption as to meaning of language in, see post, § 507. As to basis for statement by court as to common law, see COMMON LAW, § 1 r. Presumption that statute does not apply to state, see STATES, § 4 g. Presumption as to prospective operation of statute, see STATUTES, § 290 h. a. In the construction of revenue laws, every presumption is to be made in favor of the state. Allen v. National State Bank, 52 L.R.A. 760, 92 Md. 509, 48 Atl. 78. b. Legislative enactments must be presumed by the courts to have been enacted from good motives and for proper purposes. People ex rel. Carter v. Rice, 16 L.R.A. 836, 135 N. Y. 473, 31 N. E. 921. c. Laws are presumed to have been passed with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the same subject. State ex rel. Stearns County v. Klasen, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 597, 123 Minn. 382, 143 N. W. 984. d. It must be presumed in construing a statute that the legislature did not act blindly or arbitrarily, but that it had a reasonable and practicable plan for the accomplishment of its purpose. Lincoln v. Janesch, 56 L.R.A. 762, 63 Neb. 707, 89 N. W. 280. g. Burden of proof, in the sense of the e. The legislature will be presumed to duty of producing evidence, passes from have done each act required by the Conparty to party as the case progresses, while stitution in the passage of a statute, unless burden of proof in the sense of the obliga-it affirmatively appears on the journal that tion to establish the truth of the claim by it failed to do so. Re Drainage Dist. No. preponderance of evidence, rests throughout 1, L.R.A.1915A, 1210, 26 Idaho, 311, 143 upon the party asserting the affirmative of Pac. 299. the issue, so that unless he meets this obligation upon the whole case, he fails. Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Mee, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 725, 218 III. 9, 75 N. E. 800. f. All laws are presumed to be consistent with each other until the contrary is shown. Palmer v. District of Columbia, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 878, 26 App. D. C. 31. III. Presumptions and burden of proof. b. Laws; ordinances; Constitution. g. In the absence of evidence, the court g. A judicial construction which has been will not assume that there was discrimina-given to any particular language or phrase tion in a statute providing a mode of assess- is presumed to be read into a subsequent ment of the intangible assets of chair-car statute, adopting such language, or phrase, companies, which does not include sleeping and this rule applies where a statute of one and dining-car companies. Missouri, K. & state which has received a settled judicial T. R. Co. v. Shannon, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 681, construction by the courts thereof, is sub100 Tex. 379, 100 S. W. 138. sequently enacted by another state. ute. Wid § 95. Construction of adopted stat-ows' & Orphans' Home v. Com. 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829, 126 Ky. 386, 103 S. W. 354. g 96. Change of common law. Presumption as to intent of legislature as to, see post, § 206 c, d. a. When, in enacting a statute, the legislature copies the language of a foreign statute, it will be presumed to have adopted the construction already given by the courts to the copied statute. Ryalls v. Mechanics Mills, 5 L.R.A. 667, 150 Mass. 190, 22 N. E. 766; Matthews v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 25 L.R.A. 161, 121 Mo. 298, 24 S. W. 591, aff'd in 165 Ú. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 611, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243; Harrill v. Davis, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1153, 168 Fed. 187, 94 C. C. A. 47; People v. Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 255 Ill. 168, 99 N. E. 377; Jones v. Nye, L.R.A.1916E, 735, 56 Okla. 578, 156 Pac. 332. b. A legislative statute is presumed to have been enacted in the light of such existing judicial decisions as have a direct bearing upon it. Re Moffitt, 20 L.R.A. (NS) 207. 153 Cal. 359, 95 Pac. 653, aff'd in 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1179, 218 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 1086, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79. e. The legislature of one state, in adopt ing a statute of a sister state, is presumed to have adopted also the construction of such statute placed thereon by the court of last resort of such sister state. Hutchinson v. Krueger, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 315, 34 Okla. 23, 124 Pac. 591. a. A statute will not be presumed to derogate from or abrogate the common law. Barber v. Knowles, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 663, 77 Ohio St. 81, 82 N. E. 1065. b. A statute in modification or derogation of the common law will not be presumed to alter it further than is expressly declared. Kidd v. Bates, 41 L.R.A. 154, 120 Ala. 79, 23 So. 735. c. A statute will not be presumed to alter the common law, other than what has been specified and besides what has been plainly pronounced. Reeves & Co. v. Russell, L.R.A. 1915D, 1149, 28 N. D. 265, 148 N. W. 654. d. Statutes are not presumed to alter the common law beyond their express declaration, so that in all doubtful matters they shall be construed agreeably to the rules of the common law applicable to their subjectmatter. Bandfield v. Bandfield, 40 L.R.A. 757, 117 Mich. 80, 75 N. W. 287. § 97. Law of foreign country. Necessity and effect of pleading, see PLEAD- d. When the statute of another state or a. The laws of foreign countries, when made an issue in a case, must be proved as other facts. Robertson v. Stead, 33 L.R.A. 203, 135 Mo. 135, 36 S. W. 610. c. Presumptions as to foreign laws are generally confined to those states and countries in which the common law is the law of the land, and even then they do not exe. In adopting the statute of another state tend to such statutory enactments as the construction theretofore placed upon it penal in their nature. St. Sure v. Lindsby the courts of that state is presumably falt, 19 L.R.A. 515, 82 Wis. 346, 52 N. W. adopted also, unless such construction is 308. are inconsistent with the spirit and policy of d. In the absence of proof of the law of a the local laws. Re Qua v. Graham, 52 foreign country, where a contract for sale L.R.A. 641, 187 Ill. 67, 58 N. E. 357. of the good will of a business was entered f. Where a statute or constitutional pro-into, the court of the forum will presume vision of doubtful import has been adopted that it is the same as its own law; and this in one state from the statutes or Constitu- presumption cannot be affected by statetion of another, state, after a practical con-ments in its own opinions, or those of the struction has been given to the language courts of the foreign country, which are not by judicial decision, it will be presumed that put in evidence. Gordon V. Knott, 19 the interpretation adopted in the state from L.R.A. (N.S.) 762, 199 Mass. 173, 85 N. E. which it is taken has been adopted, as well 184. as its words. Atty. Gen. ex rel. Werts v. Rogers, 23 L.R.A. 354, 56 N. J. L. 480, 28 Atl. 726, 29 Atl. 173. e. The Federal courts cannot assume without proof that, under the law of Cuba, like that of the forum, a promise to repair or III. Presumptions and burden of proof. b. Laws; ordinances; Constitution. replace defective machinery, when notified statute of the other state defining usury by an employee of the defect, throws upon | and prescribing as a penalty the forfeiture the master the risk of injury to such em- of all interest, and bases an appropriate ployee from such defect until the time for plea of usury on that statute, in order to performance has expired, or that it does maintain the plea it is essential that he away with or leaves to the jury what other-prove that the statute was in force at the wise would be negligence as a matter of law. time of the execution of the contract. ThomCuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 40, as v. Clarkson, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 658, 125 Ga. 222 U. S. 473, 56 L. ed. 274, 32 Sup. Ct. 72, 54 S. E. 77. Rep. 132. (Annotated) f. In an action upon a simple contract to pay money for a valuable consideration, entered into in a foreign country in which the common law does not prevail, the court will presum, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the law of such country recognizes an enforceable obligation upon such contract. Parrot v. Mexican C. R. Co. 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 261, 207 Mass. 184, 93 N. E. 590. (Annotated) § 98. Law on the high seas. a. The burden of proving that there is a law on the high seas which will uphold a marriage under Cal. Civ. Code, § 63, recognizing marriages valid where contracted, is upon one who is married on the high seas, with the avowed purpose of evading the laws of his residence. Norman v. Norman, 42 L.R.A. 343, 121 Cal. 620, 54 Pac. 143. § 99. Statute law of other states. Judicial notice of law of other state, see ante, § 8. Presumption as to construction of statute adopted from other states, see ante, § 95. Necessity of pleading and proving law of other state, see PLEADING, § 82. a. Before effect can be given to a statute of another state, it must be proved as a fact. Hollbrook V. Libby, L.R.A.1916A, 1167, 113 Me. 389, 94 Atl. 482. b. When it becomes necessary to establish the law of another state it must be proved as facts are proved. Sealy v. Missouri K. & T. R. Co. 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 500, 84 Kan. 479, 114 Pac. 1077. c. A statute is prima facie operative only as to persons and things within the territorial jurisdiction of the lawmaking power which enacted it. Re Quirk, 51 L.R.A (N.S.) 817, 257 Mo. 422, 165 S. W. 1062. d. The burden of proving the law of another state rests upon the party claiming rights under it; and in the absence of such proof, the trial court is authorized to presume that the same rule of law which obtains there obtains in the other state, it being founded in the principles of the common law, and not the necessary outgrowth of a local and peculiar statute. Conrad v. Fisher, 8 L.R.A. 147, 37 Mo. App. 352. e. The rule that the laws of other states must be proved as facts, applies to laws respecting the validity and effect of judg. ments. Hunt v. Monroe, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 249, 32 Utah, 428, 91 Pac. 269. f. In a suit in one state on a contract made and intended to be performed in another, in which the defendant pleads the g. It will be presumed, in the absence of any decision to the contrary in a sister state, that the contractual liability of a stockholder in that state goes to a receiver as assets for the payment of corporate debts. Cushing v. Perot, 34 L.R.A. 737, 175 Pa. 66, 34 Atl. 447. (Annotated) h. The burden of proving restrictions in another state upon the remarriage of a divorced person is upon the person alleging them. State v. Shattuck, 40 L.R.A. 428, 69 Vt. 403, 38 Atl. 81. § 100.- similarity to that of forum. Similarity of common law, see post, § 103. See also CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 86 k. tory law of a sister state is the same as that a. No presumption exists that the statuof Minnesota. Wilcox v. Bergman, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 938, 96 Minn. 219, 104 N. W. 955. b. Courts will presume that the common law in another state is the same as in their own, but such presumption does not extend to the statute law of the other state. O'Reilly v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 5 L.R.A. 364, 16 R. I. 388, 17 Atl. 906, later appeal 6 L.R.A. 719, 16 R. I. 395, 19 Atl. 244; Wilcox v. Bergman, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 938, 96 Minn. 219, 104 N. W. 955. c. In the absence of proof of the law of a sister state the presumption is that the common law is the same as the local law, but not that the statute law of the two states is the same. Cherry v. Sprague, 67 L.R.A. 33, 187 Mass. 113, 72 N... 456. d. The laws of a foreign state are presumed to be the same as the statutes of a state within which an action is brought, in the absence of a showing to the contrary. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Sharitt, 8 L.R.A. 385, 389, 43 Kan. 375, 23 Pac. 430; Osborn v. Blackburn, 10 L.R.A. 367, 78 Wis. 209, 47 N. W. 175, writ of error dismissed in 149 U. S. 766, 37 L. ed. 960, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1043; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hailey, 27 L.R.A. 549, 94 Tenn. 383, 29 S. W. 367; Stewart v. Union Mut. L. Íns. Co. 42 L.R.A. 147, 155 N. Y. 257, 49 N. E. 876, reargument denied in 155 N. Y. 698, 50 N. E. 1122; Fisher v. Donovan, 44 L.R.A. 383, 57 Neb. 361, 77 N. W. 778; Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co. 50 L.R.A. 816, 52 La. Ann. 1417, 27 So. 851; Sheppard v. Cœur d'Alene Lumber Co. 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 267, 62 Wash. 12, 112 Pac. 932. e. The laws of another state will be presumed by a court to be the same as those of the forum. Scroggin v. McClelland, 22 L.R.A. 110, 37 Neb. 644, 56 N. W. 208; Contra, Kelley v. Kelley, 25 L.R.A. 806, 161 Mass. 111, 26 N. E. 837. f. It will be presumed that the law of another state as to which there is no proof III. Presumptions and burden of proof. is the same as that of the forum in respect to public policy. Loud v. Hamilton, 45 L.R.A. 400, Tenn. 51 S. W. 140. g. The laws of the state where a contract is made are, in the absence of proof to the contrary, presumed to be the same as those of the state where it is sought to be enforced. Goodwin v. Providence Sav. L. Assur. Soc. 32 L.R.A. 473, 97 Iowa, 226, 66 N. W. 157. h. In the absence of proof, the law of another state governing a contract will be presumed to be the same as the law of the forum; and such contract will be interpreted accordingly. Meuer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 25 L.R.A. 81, 5 S. D. 568, 59 N. W. 945. i. The court will assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the law of another state is the same as that es tablished by a local statute permitting the suspension of business on legal holidays. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Naive, 64 L.R.A. 443, 112 Tenn. 239, 79 S. W. 124. b. Laws; ordinances; Constitution. Coal & Coke Co. v. Howard, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1051, 130 Ga. 807, 61 S. W. 987. c. Where the condition of the law of another state becomes material, and no evidence is offered concerning it, the court will presume that the general principles of the common law prevail there. Wolf v. Burke, 19 L.R.A. 792, 18 Colo. 264, 32 Pac. 427. d. The presumption that the common law is inforced in another state will be indulged only as to those states that have taken the common law as a basis of their jurisprudence. Garner v. Wright, 6 L.R.A. 715, 52 Ark. 385, 12 S. W. 785. e. In a suit upon a contract made and to be executed in another state, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that the rules of the common law prevail there. Pattillo v. Alexander, 29 L.R.A. 616, 96 Ga. 60, 22 S. E. 646. f. In determining the merits of a defense interposed by a surety upon a promissory note made in one state, but sought to be j. It is presumed that the statutes of a enforced in another, it will be presumed, in sister state where is located a mine be- the absence of proof to the contrary, that, longing to a corporation whose directors do upon the question presented, the common business in the state where suit is brought, law as interpreted by the court of the as to the right of stockholders to inspect forum prevails in the state in which the the mine, are the same as the local statutes. contract was made. Thomas v. Clarkson, Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. 43 L.R.A. 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 658, 125 Ga. 72, 54 S. E. (N.S.) 1112, 164 Cal. 497, 129 Pac. 781. k. An action for damages for breach of covenant of seisin in a deed of lands located in another state will be governed by the law of the forum if the law of the place where the lands are located is not pleaded or proved in the action. Coleman v. Lucksinger, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 934, 224 Mo. 1, 123 S. W. 441. § 101. Common law of other state. Presumption as to change of, see ante, § 96. Presumption as to continuance of, see post, § 256 e. a. The court of one state cannot presume that the common law has been altered in another state, in the absence of proof to that effect. Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 24 L.R.A. 548, 140 N. Y. 563, 35 N. E. 932. § 102.- existence of. As to exemption from liability for fellow servant's negligence, see CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 89 f. See also post, § 103 e, f; CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 86 k. a. In the absence of anything showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the common law prevails in a sister state. Burdict v. Missouri P. R. Co. 26 L.R.A. 384, 123 Mo. 221, 27 S. W. 453; Gooch v. Fau cette, 39 L.R.A. 835, 122 N. C. 270, 29 S. E. 362; Massachusetts Ben. Life Asso. v. Robinson, 42 L.R.A. 261, 104 Ga. 256, 30 S. E. 918; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 63 L.R.A. 347, 174 N. Y. 398, 67 N. E. 83; Bodine v. Berg, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 65, 82 N. J .L. 662, 82 Atl. 901. b. Where no special statute of another state is pleaded it will be presumed that the common law prevails there. Coaling 77. g. The act of Congress applicable to the District of Columbia, expressly providing that a divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be granted "where either party has committed adultery during the marriage," negatives any presumption by a court of another jurisdiction that the common-law rule denying divorce a vinculo for such ground is still in force in the District. 107 Md. 329, 68 Atl. 561. Dimpfel v. Wilson, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1180, h. Statutory restrictions on the alienation of the interests of cestuis que trusts will not be presumed to be the law of another state, but the common-law rules in equity will be presumed to obtain there in the absence of proof on the subject. First Nat. Bank v. National Broadway Bank, 42 L.R.A. 139, 156 N. Y. 459, 51 N. E. 398. i. No proof of the law of the state where the injury occurred is necessary to sustain a common-law action in another state. for personal injuries caused by defendant's negligence. Burdict v. Missouri P. R. Co. 26 L.R.A. 384, 123 Mo. 221, 27 S. W. 453. in which a cause of action arose is not availj. The statute of limitations of the state able in an action in another state for the enforcement of such cause of action, unless Illinois Steel Co. 34 L.R.A. 503, 94 Wis. it is offered in evidence. Eingartner v. 70, 68 N. W. 664. § 103. - similarity to that of forum. Similarity of statute laws, see ante, § 100. a. The court presumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the common law of a sister state is the same as its own. Southern Exp. Co. v. Owens, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 369, 146 Ala. 412, 41 So. 752. |