Thomas v. Lally

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an action upon a judgment obtained against the defendant in the state of Illinois. More than twenty years after the original judgment was given the assignee thereof sued out a writ of

scire facias

asking for a revival of the judgment against the defendant. The defendant appeared, filed a demurrer, which was overruled, and he elected to “stand by his demurrer”; a default was taken and entered against him, the record reading that the judgment against the defendant be revived and to stand in full force and effect as at the time of its rendition, and that the holder thereof have execution thereon against the defendant. Thereafter defendant made a motion in arrest of judgment, which was denied. Upon request he was granted permission to take an appeal, hut it appears that he failed to prosecute it within the time or at all, and the judgment of the court

[309]

last referred to has never been reversed, modified, or set aside.

In the action in the court below the plaintiff recovered judgment as prayed and the defendant appeals.

From a reading of the record it appears that the court in the state of Illinois in which the original judgment was entered had jurisdiction both of the subject-matter and the parties. The record also shows that the order or judgment of revival was rendered in a proceeding in accordance with the course authorized by the laws of the state of Illinois. These propositions are not disputed by the defendant. He does, however, appear to contend that the action of the court taken in the proceeding to revive the judgment amounts to nothing more than an order for judgment and not a judgment. A glance at so much of the record of the court in Illinois as we have hereinabove set forth would seem to be a sufficient answer to that contention. Moreover, it is clear that what the court did in the premises is all that was required by the laws of Illinois in order that a judgment of that state might be revived. The record on its face shows that the order or direction of the court was in fact a judgment—a final determination of the rights of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 577;

Leman