Time Required by Express Company.Although the courts should take notice of the distances between well known geographical points in the United States, they cannot officially take notice how long it might take an express company to carry a sum of money from one designated city to another. What is a reasonable time for this is a question of fact. Rice v. Montgomery, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 75.

Location of a Justice's Office-Street Number.-Judicial notice will not be taken of the locality of the office of a justice of the peace, nor that a particular number of a certain street is in a given ward or district of a city. Allen 7. Scharringhausen, 8 Mo. App. 229. Land Not Subject to Location.--Nor that certain land is not subject to location because it lies under a navigable lake. Wilcox. Jackson, 109 Ill.

261.

City Plats.--Nor of city plats or location of city lands. Cicotte v. Cruciaux, 53 Mich. 227.

Of Historical Facts--Portions of State Held by the Forces of Either Party During the War. However extended the modern doctrine of judicial notice may be, this court cannot take judicial cognizance of the extent of military occupation of the State of Tennessee by either belligerent, while that occupation was being contested, whatever we might hold on the question after the contest ceased, and but one party occupied the country and permanently maintained that occupation. There is no room for judicial cognizance where the facts are so recent as scarcely to have, as yet, passed into the domain of history, and are so readily susceptible of proof; and being of so uncertain a character in their nature, based on the movements of armies however large, we do not think they come within the established rules of law on this question. McDonald v. Kirby, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607.

Lines of Armies--In Field.--Nor will the court take notice of the lines of the armies in the field, at any particular time during the civil war. Kelley v. Story, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 202. Compare Bond . Perkins, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 364. Facts of History as Affecting Individuals or Local Communities. There are, no doubt, cases in which courts, upon questions addressed to them, may take judicial notice of matters of general history and public and universal notoriety, which admit of no dispute; and that such evidence is only admis

sible to prove facts of a general and public nature, not those that concern individuals or mere local communities. McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206, 214.

Authority of Encyclopædias, Dictionaries, or Other Publications.--Judicial notice will not be taken of facts stated in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, unless they are of such universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming a part of the common knowledge of every person. Kaolatype Engraving Co v. Hoke, 30 Fed. Rep. 444.

Depreciation of Currency During War. --The court cannot take judicial notice of the extent of the depreciation of the currency during the civil war. Modawell v. Holmes, 40 Ala. 391.

Geographical Facts Not Historical or Traditional.-The court will not take judicial notice of geographical and similar facts, not historical or traditional, as the capacity of "Five mile run," in Cattaraugus county, for navigation, etc. gation, etc. Buffalo Pipe Line Co. v. New York etc. R. Co., 10 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 107.

Texas Cattle--Communication of Disease.-Nor that during certain seasons of the year Texas cattle are liable to communicate disease. Bradford 2. Floyd. So Mo. 207.

Value of Lead Ore.--Nor of the market value of lead ore. Cook v. Decker, 63 Mo. 328.

Mining Districts.--Nor of the usages and customs of mining districts. Sullivan v. Heuse, 2 Colo. T. 424.

Growth of Trees.-Nor that concentric circles or layers in the trunk of a tree each mark a year's growth. Patterson v. McCausland, 3 Bland (Md.) 69.

Kerosene Oil.--That kerosene oil is a refined coal oil or a refined earth oil, are not facts to be judicially noticed. Bennett v. North British etc. Ins. Co., 8 Daly (N. Y.) 471.

Consequence of Attack on Fort Sumter.--On April 16th, 1861, a court in this State could not, by judicial cognizance, based on newspaper reports that Fort Sumter had been fired upon on April 12th, assume that war existed between the United States and Confederate States. Held, in a suit on a promissory note, where defendants pleaded that the real plaintiffs were alien enemies, the court said: "If congress, when it acts, should declare the

war to have existed anterior to its declaration; and, if the question should be subsequently before them, the courts will follow the declaration and take judicial notice of its existence from the time thus fixed. But for them to attempt to declare its existence as a matter of legal knowledge, before any action has been taken by the war making power, would be a most flagrant violation of duty. This was not done by the congress of the Confenderate States until subsequently to the time when, it is urged, the district court should have said, as a matter of judicial knowledge, that the war had commenced." Bishop v. Jones, 28 Tex. 294.

Of Officers-That Judge Was Prosecuting Attorney When Indictment Was Found. In a criminal cause, where the prosecuting attorney, who held office when the indictment was found, came upon the bench when the case was tried, the court does not judicially know that the prosecuting attorney and presiding judge are one and the same person. Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190. See Com. v. Fay, 126 Mass. 235; Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 Iowa 486.

Deputies. Where a deputy sheriff is not commissioned in the name of the State, or required by the statute to take any oath of office, the court will not take notice of who may hold this office. Land. Patterson, Minor (Ala.) 14; State Bank v. Curran, 10 Ark. (5 Eng.)

142.

We do not understand the rule to be that courts take judicial notice of the official character of a deputy marshal. Ward . Henry, 19 Wis. 76; Potter v. Luther, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 431.

Constables. Where constables are appointed by the town authorities, their official character will not be officially presumed by the courts. Broughton v. Blackman, I D. Chip. (Vt.) 109.

Only Officers Authorized by Law.-In Texas notice will not be taken of any person as an officer unless enumerated in the code; applied to a deputy marshal of a municipal corporation. Alford v. Alford v. State, 8 Tex. App. 545.

Of Judicial Proceedings-Jury Cannot Notice Facts of History.-The jury cannot take judicial notice of the facts of history, but some proof thereof must be given; therefore, on an appeal from a nonsuit, the appellate court cannot take notice of historical facts not put in evidence before the jury. McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206.

Inflammability of Gin and Turpen

tine. In an action on an insurance policy to recover for a loss, the court will not take judicial notice that gin and turpentine are inflammable liquids, within the meaning of that term as it is used in a clause providing that the policy shall be void, etc. Mosley v. Vermont Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142.

Legitimate Modes of Expending Money to Procure Legislation. The court has no judicial knowledge whether or not there are proper and legitimate modes of expending money in procuring the passage of an act of the legislature; and, therefore, it cannot say that an averment in an answer of such expenditure, with such purpose and result, is either immaterial or vicious. Judah v. Trustees etc., 16 Ind. 56.

Pendency of Suit.-If two corporations each commence proceedings against the same person in the same court, for the condemnation of the same lands, the court cannot, of its own motion, in one action, take judicial notice of the pendency of the other, and refuse to take any action in the matter, on the ground of the pendency of the other action. Lake Merced Water Co. 7. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215.

Neither the supreme court nor the district court will take judicial notice of proceedings pending in the United States court for confirmation of a Pueblo title, unless it is stated in the pleadings. Vassault v. Seitz, 31 Cal. 226.

Record in Another Case in Same Court.-In the trial of a case the court cannot take judicial notice of the record in another case in the same court without its formal introduction in evidence, much less can it take such notice of a case in a different court without proof. People v. De La Guerra, 24 Cal. 73.

Affidavit of a Party Admitted in Another Cause. A court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that an affidavit of a party had been admitted in another cause to which he was not a party; nor can it be admitted in evidence upon the ground that the court remembers that it would be evidence in the case at bar. Baker . Mygatt, 14 Iowa 131. See Enix v. Miller, 54 Iowa 551.

A judge sitting in one county cannot take judicial notice of a conviction or nol. pros. previously had before him in another county. State . Edwards, 19 Mo. 674.

Value of Attorney's Services.-An appellate court cannot take judicial cognizance of the value of an attorney's

services by looking at his argument as shown in the printed reports. Pearson . Darrington, 32 Ala. 227.

Organization of Company.-Although the court knows judicially all the statutes under which plank road companies are organized, yet it cannot know judicially under which one any particular company was organized, or whether it has not adopted the provisions of some other act. Danville etc. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456.

Act Relating to Inferior Courts-Supreme Court.-An act which requires the courts of the county in which the articles of an association are recorded to take judicial notice of the existence of corporations formed for such purposes, does not require the supreme court to take such notice. Cicero etc. Draining Co. v. Craighead, 28 Ind. 274. The value of the notes of the Bank of the Commonwealth, at any particular time, is not judicially noticed. Feemster v. Ringo, 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 336. Rules of District Courts.--The supreme court cannot give judicial notice of the rules of the district courts. When a party relies on such rules he should have them incorporated in the record. Cutter 7. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178.

Case Connected with One Formerly Decided. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the supreme court cannot take judicial notice that a case before the court had connection with with one formerly decided by it. Banks 7. Burnam, 61 Mo. 76.

Military Orders.--The court cannot take judicial notice of the military orders extending the time for a stay of execution on judgments. Johnston v. Wilson, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 379.

Proceedings in Bankruptcy.-A State court is not required to notice judicially that proceedings in bankruptcy have been instituted by or against parties to a suit pending therein. Esterbrook etc. Mfg. Co. v. Ahern 30 N. J. Eq. 341.

Impossibility of Crime.-Where, in an action for slander, it was claimed that the crime charged by the slanderous words was impossible, the court refused to take judicial knowledge of the fact, using the following language: "Whether the words in the case at bar imply an impossible fact, or impute an impossible crime, we are not able to say.

Whether it is physically impossible for sexual connection to take place between a dog and a woman, and whether. could such connection take place, it is a physical impossibility that conception should follow, we are not advised. If such be the case, we do not think it is generally known to the people. They are presumed, bound, indeed, to know the law, but not philosophic or scientific fic facts and principles. Hence we think the injury to the plaintiff may not be affected by the truth or falsity of such facts and principles, and that this action may well lie." Ansman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355.

Abbreviations.-The petition filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, prior to taking depositions to perpetuate testimony, gave defendant's name as "C. B. & Q. R. R. Co." and stated that plaintiff expected to bring an action against the same. A paper was filed, with cross interrogatories attached, signed "C. B. & Q. R. R. Co." Held, that the court could not take judicial notice that the letters "C. B. & Q. R. R. Co." constituted the name of the defendant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, and that defendant was not properly made a party to the proceedings to perpetuate testimony. Accola v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 70 Iowa 185. See ABBREVIATIONS, vol. 1, p. 15.

1. Individual Loyalty to the Union.No judicial notice can be taken that any inhabitant of a State in insurrection against the government in the civil war maintained a loyal adhesion to the Union and the constitution, or that any part of such State was occupied and controlled by the forces of the United States, or that any particular person had a licence or permit from the president to trade. Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124.

Jurisdiction of Foreign Officers.-The courts cannot take judicial notice of the clerks of foreign courts or their forms; and, therefore, cannot know that an affidavit purporting to have been made and subscribed before the clerk of the court of common pleas of Richland county, Ohio, or his deputy clerk, was taken before that officer, or that he had authority to administer oaths. Ex parte Jones, 66 Ala. 202.

That the office of an insurance company is a banking house, cannot be judi

cially known to the courts. Winter v. Coxe, 41 Ala. 207.

The journals of a legislative body are not evidence to the courts as to what has been enacted by such body, and in the absence of other evidence, a court is not warranted in finding that a generai act has been passed by such legislative body, where such act has not been published amongst the laws, and no copy of it can be found enrolled in the office of the secretary of the territory, who is the lawful custodian of all original bills that have been properly passed. Graves v. Alsop, 1 Ariz. 274. Local Option in Counties.-Judicial notice is not taken as to the action of counties under laws allowing the exercise of local option, as to the liquor traffic. Morris v. Fraker, 5 Colo. 425.

The Habit of Smoking Cigars.-The court does not know judicially, that smoking a cigar, by one who has acquired the habit, is a necessity; and the sale of cigars on Sunday, in the usual course of the seller's business, to an habitual smoker of cigars, is in violation of the Sunday law. Meuller v. State. 76 Ind. 310.

Initials of Name of Railroad Company. Courts cannot take judicial notice that a well known railroad company is popularly known by the initial letters of the words constituting its full name; for example, that "C. B. & Q. R. Co." means the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. So, held, where those initials alone were used to designate the party adversely interested in a petition to take depositions to perpetuate testimony under the provisions of the code; and the depositions so taken were not admissible in a subsequent action against said company, although someone filed cross interrogatories signed C. B. & Q. R. Co. Accola v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 70 Iowa 185.

Yeas and Nays.-The courts cannot take judicial notice that the yeas and nays were not entered on the journal on the final passage of an act appropriating money, although the amount claimed under it is not stated therein. Auditor . Haycraft, 14 Bush (Ky.) 284. Regulations of the United States treasury department, by which treasury notes made payable to a disbursing officer are not legally obligatory on the government until endorsed by him, will

not be noticed judicially. Moore z. Worthington, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 30S.

A charge for commission or discount on a bill received in payment must be proved; courts will not take judicial notice of a mercantile usage to allow it. Ward v. Everett, 1 Dana (Ky.) 429.

Depreciation of paper currency cannot be judicially known, but must be proved. Bell v. Waggener, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 524.

Principal and Interest.-The court of appeals cannot ex officio notice that damages equal to principal and interest. in a covenant for bank paper, dated before the act allowing the recovery in kind, are excessive. Owens v. Holliday, 7 T. B., Mon. (Ky.) 297.

1. Oleomargarine.-Neither court nor legislature can have judicial knowledge of the merits or defects of oleomargarine so as to be able to declare it, hygienic value. Northwestern Manufacturing Co. v. Chambers, 58 Mich. 381.

Facts in the Record -An appellate court cannot take notice of facts in a record before it in deciding another case with which they are involved. Chittenden 7. Wilbeck, 50 Mich. 401.

By-Law of Association.-A court cannot take judicial notice of a by-law of a benevolent insurance association. Portage Lake Miners & Mech's Benevolent Society v. Phillip, 36 Mich. 22.

Means of public information should be provided, where judicial notice is required to be taken of organizations incorporated under a general act. Shumway 7. Bennett. 29 Mich. 451.

Evidence of usage on the part of four railway companies, held, insufficient to establish a custom. Thompson v. Minneapolis etc. R. Co. 35 Minn. 428.

The court was asked, in the case at bar, to take judicial notice of the great losses which the Northern Pacific Railroad Company had sustained by reason of Indian reservations and the settle ments which had been made within the limits of its gant, prior to the final location of its line, and from this to assume that the selection of certain lands was in lieu of such losses sustained. Held, that the court could not take such notice. Elling . Thexton, 7 Mont. 330.

The courts of the United States cannot take judicial notice of a justice of the peace in another State. In re Keeler, Hemp. (U. S.) 306.

I. Definition and Nature, 208.
II. Manner of Sale, 209.

1. Who May Make, 209.
2. Notice, 210.

3. Place, 213.

4. Publicity, 214.

5. Sale in Parcels, 214.

6. Sale for Cash, 217.

7. Adjournment, 217.

8. Sale After Return Day, 218. III. Confirmation and Deed, 219. IV. Purchasers, 222.

1. Who May Purchase, 222.
2. Bona Fide Purchasers, 223.
3. Title Acquired-Caveat Emp-
tor, 225.

4. Rights of Purchasers, 229.
5. Liabilities of Purchaser, 233.
V. Setting Aside and Resale, 235-
VI. Redemption, 239.

1. Generally, 239.

2. Who May Redeem, 240. 3. Time and Manner, 241. 4. Effect, 243.

1. Williamson v. Berry, S How. (U. S.) 495, 547. “A sale by authority of some competent tribunal, by an officer authorized by law for the purpose," 1 Bouv. Law Dict., tit. Judicial Sale. See also Abb. Law Dict. 669, same title.

The court itself is regarded as the vendor in a technical judicial sale. Harrison v. Harrison, Md. Ch. 332, 333; Hurt. v. Stull, 4 Md. Ch. 391, 393; Armor v. Cochrane, 66 Pa. St. 308, 311; Bozza v. Rowe, 30 Ill. 198. And the sale is, in contemplation of law at least, made pendente lite. Rover on Judicial Sales, § 1.

2. Griffith v. Fowler, 18 Vt. 394; Gowan v. Jones, to Smed. & M. (Miss.) 164; Hershy v. Latham, 42 Ark. 305.

What Are Judicial Sales.-A foreclosure by notice and sale. Sturdevant 7. Norris, 30 Iowa 65. An administrator's sale of land by order of court. Halleck v. Guy, 9 Cal. 181; Vandever v. Baker, 13 Pa. St. 126. A sale of land in partition proceedings, where it cannot be divided. Sacket v. Twining, 18 Pa. St. 199, 202; Hutton v. Williams, 35 Ala. 503. And in general all sales made by order or decree under direction of the court, and requiring confirmation by the court, are judicial sales. Rover on Judicial Sales (2nd ed.), § 29. See also Chew v. Hyman, 7 Fed. Rep. 7.

Execution or sheriff's sales have been held to be judicial sales under the Indiana statute. Jackman v. Nowling, 69 Ind. 188; Taylor v. Stockwell, 66 Ind. 505. And a sale by an assignee under the voluntary assignment law, duly confirmed by the court, was held to be a judicial sale within the meaning of the Indiana act of March 11th, 1875. vesting the inchoate interests of married women when the title of the husband has been divested by a judicial sale. Lawson v. De Bolt, 78 Ind. 563. A conveyance by a register in bankruptcy is such a sale. Schieketauz, 73 Ind. 137; McCracken . Kuhn, 73 Ind. 149. So as to assignee's sale in Ohio. Dresback 7. Stein, 41 Ohio St. 70.

Ketchum v.

So in several of the States, where sales on execution are required by statute to be confirmed by the court, they are generally treated as judicial sales. See Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How. (U. S.) 159, 164; Smith v. Arnold, 5 Mass. (U. S.) 414, 420; Eakin v. Herbert, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 116; Baily v. Baily, 9 Rich. (S. Car.) Eq. 392, 395; Curtis v. Norton, 1 Ohio 278; Thompson v. Phillips, Baldw. (U. S.) 246, 272.

The appointment of the sheriff instead of a master or commissioner to make the sale under a decree, will not prevent the sale from being a judicial