Case Name: Susan Geoghegan, Adm'rx of John M. Geoghegan, App'lt v. The Atlas Steamship Co. (limited), Resp't,
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-02
Citations: 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 49
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susan Geoghegan, Adm’rx of John M. Geoghegan, App’lt v. The Atlas Steamship Co. (limited), Resp’t,
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 32
Pages: 49–51

Head Matter:
Susan Geoghegan, Adm’rx of John M. Geoghegan, App’lt v. The Atlas Steamship Co. (limited), Resp’t,
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 2, 1890.)
Depositions. — Commission should not be granted to prove a foreign LAW OR ITS INTERPRETATION.
In. an action for negligence the court refused a motion for a commission to examine witnesses in a foreign country for the purpose of obtaining proof of a law of that country, and its interpretation by the courts thereof. Held,no error, as it did not appear that the statute could not be proved under § 943 of the Code, and the testimony as to its interpretation would be inadmissible if obtained.
Appeal from an order at special term denying plaintiff’s motion for a commission
Roger M. Sherman, for app’lt; Lawrence Qodkin, for resp’t

Opinion:
Bookstaver, J.
The action in which the motion was made is brought to recover damages from the defendant for the alleged death of plaintiff's intestate, caused, as it is claimed, by the negligence of defendant in the harbor of Savanilia, republic of Colombia. The learned judge, who heard the motion, says in his opinion it was conceded on the argument by plaintiff's counsel that the sole object of the proposed commission was to secure proof of a certain statute law of the republic of Colombia, and its interpretation in the country. Mo other ground for the motion is suggested by the moving papers. They do not show that there is any ambiguity or uncertainty in the meaning of the law, or that it has received any judicial interpretation in that republic, or that it cannot be proved under § 942 of our Code. We think the latter fact at least must be made to appear, before the court would be authorized to grant the commission.
It has been held that the statute law of another state cannot be proved by parol. Toulando v. Lachenmeyer, 6 Abb., N. S., 215; Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 Johns., 385.
But if the object of the commission had been stated in the papers to be to prove the construction and interpretation of this. foreign statue, the opinion of the person sought 'to be examined would not be admissible to prove it
Where the evidence of a foreign law consists entirely of a written document, statute or judicial opinion, the question of its construction and effect is for the court to- determine, and evidence of a lawyer of another state or country as to what in the opinion of lawyers there should be the construction of a statute of that- state or country is not admissible where the language of the statute is plain and there is no decision by the courts of that state or country upon the points in controversy. Molson's Bank v. Boardman, 47 Hun, 142; 14 N. Y. State Rep., 658; Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass., 255; Shoe & Leather Bank v. Wood, 142 id., 564; Hennessey v. Farrelly, 13 Daly, 468; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 571.
The motion was therefore properly denied, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.