Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/92

 of John D. Biggert, who was sworn on behalf of defendants on the trial. They offered to prove by him that he made out the statement from memoranda furnished him by Leighton, and he testified that he had no personal knowledge of the business of the boat. He could not bind the plaintiff by any statement, or thereby create evidence against him, as there is nothing to show that he had any authority to act for plaintiff, and there is no legal evidence that he was empowered to represent any one interested in the claim sued upon. The order granting a new trial is reversed, with costs. All concur.

NATIONAL GERMAN AMERICAN BANK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREGOR LANG, Defendant and Respondent.

Action on Note-Principal and Agent-Foreign Laws-Pleading-Evidence.

1. Where a litigant desires to take advantage of the laws of another state it is incumbent upon him to show by proper averments what such laws are, and wherein they differ from those of this state. If he fails to do so it is error to admit testimony at the trial as to what the foreign law is. In the absence of allegation and proof to the contrary the courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as that of the forum.

2 The defendant for value made and delivered to plaintiff an obligation in the following form: "81,200. 11th March, 1889. Ninety days after date I promise to pay to the National German-American Bank, St. Paul, at the bank, St. Paul, the sum of twelve hundred dollars, value received. On acct of the ranch. GREGOR LANG." At the trial plaintiff put this paper in evidence, together with evidence showing the amount of interest which had accrued after the paper matured, figured at 7 per cent., and rested the case. Upon defendant's motion the district court nonsuited the plaintiff, and directed a verdict for the defendant. Held error. The instrument contains all the essentials of a promissory note; and, while the phrase, viz., "on account of the ranch," is superfluous, it does not relieve the defendant of his personal liability to pay the note, nor purport to do so.

3. Defendant's answer stated in substance that, while the defendant personally made and delivered the note and received the money therefor from plaintiff, the money so received was to be used for the