Case Name: John H. Dugan v. W. P. Harman et ux.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1909-06-05
Citations: 80 Kan. 302
Docket Number: No. 15,936
Parties: John H. Dugan v. W. P. Harman et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 302–312

Head Matter:
John H. Dugan v. W. P. Harman et ux.
No. 15,936.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
Judgments — Dormancy—Validity of Execution. An execution, which recites that “whereas, on the 13th day of April, 1898, in an action pending before George I. Robinson, a justice of' the peace of Elkhorn township, Lincoln county, in the state of Kansas, John H. Dugan recovered two judgments against. W. P. Harman and Lucy A. Harman for the sum of $368.07,. and the further sum of $6.23 as costs of suit, with interest at. the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from the 9th day of April,. •1898, and afterward the said John H. Dugan duly filed his, abstract of said judgment in the district court of Lincoln county, Kansas,” is not void. And such execution, issued less; than five years after the 13th day of April, 1898, is sufficient to prevent two judgments rendered on that date by the same-court in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same defendants, for separate sums aggregating $368.07, and $6.23 costs, from becoming dormant for a period of five years from the date of such execution.
Error from Lincoln district court; Rollin R. Rees,, judge.
Opinion filed June 5, 1909.
Reversed.
STATEMENT.
On the 13th day of April, 1898, John H. Dugan, as plaintiff in.two separate actions before a justice of the peace in Lincoln county, obtained two separate judgments against W. P. Harman and wife, one for $291.55 and $2.26 costs, the other for $76.52 and $2.47 costs. Each judgment bore interest at 10 per cent, per annum..
On August 4,1900, an abstract of each judgment was; filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Lincoln county and separately entered in the journal of justice’s judgments and upon the judgment record. On the 20th day of June, 1902, the clerk of the district court issued an execution, which was not entitled in either case, and of which the following is a copy:
“EXECUTION.
“State of Kansas, Lincoln County, ss.
“The state of Kansas, to the sheriff of Lincoln county, greeting: Whereas, on the 13th day of April, 1898, in an action pending before George I. Robinson, a justice of the peace of Elkhorn township, Lincoln county, in the state of Kansas, John H. Dugan recovered two judgments against W. P. Harman and Lucy A. Harman for the sum of $368.07, and the further sum of $6.23 as costs of suit, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from the 9th day of April, 1898, and afterward the said John H. Dugan duly filed his abstract of said judgment in the district court of Lincoln county, Kansas; and, whereas, there remains unpaid on said judgment the sum of $368.07, with interest: Now, therefore, you are hereby commanded that of the goods and chattels of said debtors you cause the moneys above specified to be made, and for want of goods and chattels you cause the same to be made of the lands and tenements of said debtors, and make return of this execution, with your certificate thereon, showing the manner you have executed the same, within sixty days from the date hereof.
“In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court, at my office in Lincoln, Kan., in said county, this 20th day of June, A. D. 1902.
[seal] S. D. Kistler, Clerk.”
On the back of this paper was indorsed the aggregate amount of the two judgments and the costs, and the sheriff returned thereon “no property found.” On the judgment docket, after the entry of each of the separate judgments, the clerk of the district court made the following entry: “Execution issued June 20, 1902. August 20, execution returned unsatisfied.”
On May 27,1907, the clerk of the district court issued another execution, in the same form and with the same recitals as the foregoing. As to what the sheriff did with that execution we are only advised by the following entry made by the clerk of the district court on the judgment docket after each separate judgment. “Execution issued May 27, 1907. Execution returned unsatisfied.” The record does not disclose in which of the two cases, if eithér, the returns of the executions were made or filed.
On August 12, 1907, separate executions were issued on each of the judgments, directed to the sheriff of Trego county, and the sheriff levied the same upon real estate in that county, which he sold and made return of his action to the district court of Lincoln county.
Thereafter the defendants filed four motions to quash the several executions. The court denied the motions . as to the first two executions issued, on the ground that no levies had been made thereunder and' the defendants had nothing of which to complain. The court allowed the motions to quash the two executions issued to the sheriff of Trego county, under which the levies on real estate were made. The ground assigned for allowing the last two motions was that the judgments upon which the executions were issued were dormant, the executions issued June 20, 1902, and May 27, 1907, being held void.
S. C. Miller, and E. A. McFarland, for the plaintiff in error.
Ira E. Lloyd, and John J. McCurdy, for the defendants in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
The only question presented in this case is whether the first two executions issued were void. If these executions were void, the judgments, upon which the two following executions were issued, were dormant, and the executions neither received life from the judgments nor imparted life thereto. (Denny v. Ross, 70 Kan. 720.) If, however, the first two executions were only voidable, they were sufficient to prevent the judgments from becoming dormant.
While the issuing of one execution upon two separate judgments is irregular, it is the opinion of the court, but not of the writer, that if the execution is sufficient to identify the two judgments, .or if it contains sufficient recitals to indicate where the records of the judgments can be found and such records fully identify each judgment, the execution is not void. The first two executions recite that Dugan recovered two judgments against W. P. Harman and Lucy A. Harman, on a certain day, and before a certain justice of the peace, for the sum of $368.07, and the further sum of $6.23 as costs of the suit, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent, from April 9, 1898; that afterward Dugan duly filed an abstract of the judgment in the district court, and that there remained unpaid thereon the sum of $368.07, with interest. These recitals are sufficient to direct, any one seeking information about the judgments to the records of the clerk of the district court, as well as to the records of the justice of the peace, which, of course, would give him knowledge of all facts pertaining thereto.
The district court held that the first two executions did not sufficiently identify the two judgments upon which jointly the executions were successively issued, and in this the court erred. The order of the court quashing the two executions issued to the sheriff of Trego county is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to deny such motion and to make an order confirming the sale, if the sale is otherwise found to be regular.-