Case Name: Wetmore & Co. v. Merrifield
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 17 La. 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wetmore & Co. v. Merrifield.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
Wetmore & Co. v. Merrifield.
It is not required to be proved, that tlie laws of Mississippi where a note is made payable, does not make it necessary to present it for payment, at theplaco designated therein, in orderto maintain an action against the maker, when the want of demand is not pleaded.
[514] Parol evidence of tlielaw of a State is admissible,where it appears the common law only prevails; it is only when the evidence discloses the fact that the law attempted to bo proved is a statute law, that a certified copy is the best evidence. — 2 L. 154; 4L. 382; Post, 594; 5 B. 163; 2 A. 654; But see 2 E. 32T.
Appeal from the commercial court of blew Orleans.
This is an action against the maker of a promissory note executed in blew- York, and made payable to the order of the plaintiffs, at the branch of Planter’s Bank, Port Gibson, Mississippi.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Parol evidence was offered to show that in Mississippi it was not necessary that- a demand be made on a note payable at a particular place in order to recover ; that the common law prevails in that State; the testimony was objected to but received, and a bill of exception taken.
It appears that in practice and according to the decisions in Mississippi, no demand at the place where a note is made payable, is necessary in order to recover.
There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.
Wharton for plaintiffs.
O. M. Jones contra.

Opinion:
Simon, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action against one of the makers of a promissory note, executed in the State of Mississippi; the defendant pleaded the general issue, and judgment having been rendered against him for the amount of the note with eight per cent, interest, said defendant appealed.
This case presents no question of any importance; it was admitted by the parties that the interest in Mississippi is eight per cent.
The record however contains a bill of exceptions taken to the opinion of the court, permitting the plaintiffs to prove by parol that by the laws of Mississippi where the note is made payable, it is not necessary to present it for payment at the place designated therein, in order to maintain an action [515] against the drawer. "We cannot perceive the bearing or importance of the fact sought to be proven, as the defendant has not pleaded the want of amicable demand, and as the maker of a note is always bound and cannot plead this matter in discharge of his obligation. However it is, the judge a quo did not err in receiving parol evidence of a law of a State in which, the testimony shows, the common law prevails; it is only when the evidence discloses the fact that the law attempted to be proved is a statute law, that a certified copy of the statute itself should be produced as the best evidence. 4 La. Bep. 382. And there is no necessity of showing that there is no statute law on a particular subject, to be permitted to prove it by parol. 2 La. Bep. 154.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged arid decreed, that the judgment of the commercial court be affirmed with costs.
Sed vide, Stivell v. Robb, 2 Rob. 327 ; where this dictum is considered and overruled.