| Kan. | Jul 15, 1887
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The sole question presented in this case is, whether a justice of the peace can revive a judgment rendered before him which has become dormant. The district court held that a justice possesses the power. In-this view we concur. There is no express provision in the justices code for the revivor of dormant judgments, but under § 185 of this code the provisions of the civil code for the revival of judgments are applicable to a judgment rendered before justices of the peace, where the judgment has not been transferred to the district court by appeal or otherwise. (Civil Code, §440; Angell v. Martin, 24 Kan. 334" date_filed="1880-07-15" court="Kan." case_name="Angell v. Martin">24 Kas. 334; Miller v. Curry, 17 Neb. 321" date_filed="1885-01-15" court="Neb." case_name="Miller v. Curry">17 Neb. 321.) Section 522 of the civil code prescribes the mode of reviving judgments of justices of the peace, after they have been docketed or transferred to the district court; hence that section does not conflict with the conclusion reached. (Rahm v. Soper, 28 Kan. 529" date_filed="1882-07-15" court="Kan." case_name="Rahm v. Soper">28 Kas. 529.)
The order and judgment of the district court will be affirmed.