Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wash. 6

Burns v. Conner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1890

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1890-01-22

Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe section under wbicb tbe proceeding is brought is practically a legislative adoption of the common-law writ of scire facias, the only material difference being, that at common law tbe execution could not be issued after tbe lapse of a year and a day. Tbe proceeding is a continuance of tbe original action in order to revive tbe judgment, and is not a new action. 8 Bac.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We are also of the opinion that § 27 of the Code, limiting to six years the time within which an action may he commenced upon a judgment or decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States, when viewed in connection with chapter 29, does not apply to judgments by the courts of thir state or of the late territory.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Citizens' National Bank v. Lucas

Relies on Morningstar v. Selby · Murch v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1901

13 state decisions

7018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Anders, C. J.

¶3To this motion the defendant interposed a demurrer, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a canse of action, and because it appeared upon the face thereof that no judgment in said cause had been entered within six years before filing the motion.

¶4Prom the judgment of the district court sustaining the demurrer the plaintiff appeals to this court, and assigns the decision of the court below as error.

¶5We are of the opinion that the proceeding prescribed by statute to revive the lien of a judgment is not the commencement of an action, but only a mode by which to secure the fruits of an action already had and determined between the parties, and that § 27 of the code is not applicable thereto. 5 Wait’s Actions and Defences, 641-643; Murch v. Moore, 2 Or. 189; Tyler's Ex'rs v. Winslow, 15 Ohio St. 364.

¶6We are also of the opinion that § 27 of the code limiting to six years the time within which an action may be commenced upon a judgment or decree of any court of *9the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States, when viewed in connection with chapter 29, does not apply to judgments rendered by the courts of this state or of the late territory.

¶7The district court erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s motion. The judgment is therefore reversed, •and the cause remanded to the court below with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Hoyt, Soott, Dunbar and Stiles, JJ., concur.
/1/wash/6 · .json · Public domain