Record of trial court, how enlarged..... transcript of, how prepared, no carbon copies.. on error, parties may agree. additional, leave to file. 53 10 26 27 28 must be bound... 29 how withdrawn Rehearings, application for, when due, service. 43 44 Scire facias, how served, when returnable, alias, pluries..... 18 Supersedeas application, record required.. Special terms of the Supreme Court..'. Stay of execution, how obtained, order reviewed. Summons to hear errors, effect of.. service and return. Supplemental abstract Transcript of record... Trial courts, rules of. Venue, change of Water Priorities, proceedings, alignment of parties.. 15 9-20 17 22 18 34 28 26-28 12-13. 3 23 Writs, original applications, habeas corpus, injunction, mandamus, 53 ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT 1. HENRY ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS, V. THISLER. JUDGMENT-Petition to Revive. Nothing is in issue which in any way affects the judgment as entered. (2, 3.) 2. -Construction of Record. Petition to revive a judgment. Demurrer, assigning as grounds that the petition "does not state sufficient facts, etc.," and that "the judgment is not one that can lawfully be revived." Demurrer sustained, ut no further action taken. The petition was not dismissed, nor did the plaintiff stand upon his petition. Held, impossible to determine upon what ground the demurrer was sustained; that if upon the ground first alleged the order was not res adjudicata; and if the court was of the opinion that the judgment was barred by statutory limitation, it was in error. Jones v. Stockgrowers Bank, 17 Col. App. 79. (3.) 3. —Limitation. A judgment which was in force at the adoption of c. 88 of the Laws of 1901 (Rev. Stat., sec. 3609), continued in force for the space of 20 years from its entry. (3) Error to Denver County Court. Hon. IRA C. ROTHGERBER, Judge. Department. Mr. JOHN R. SMITH, and Mr. H. B. Woods, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. HUGH MCLEAN, for defendant in error. In July, 1897, the defendant in error recovered a judgment in the District Court against T. C. Henry, and in September, 1911, he filed in said court a petition for the revival of said judgment. A demurrer to this petition was sustained. Said Henry having subsequently died, the judgment was presented as a claim against his estate, and allowed by the County Court. The administrators bring the case here for a review of the judgment allowing the claim. It is contended in behalf of the estate that in the proceedings to revive the judgment of the parties submitted to the court the question of the validity of the judgment, and that the court, having sustained the demurrer, determined that the judgment was invalid, and that the court's judgment to that effect is res adjudicata. To this the claimant replies that the court made no final determination of the question, but merely sustained the demurrer; and attention is called to the fact that after the ruling on the demurrer nothing further was done in the case; there was no election by petitioner to stand on the petition, and no order dismissing the petition was entered. Hence, it is pointed out, the authorities cited to the effect that a judgment on demurrer may be pleaded as res adjudicata, are not in point, there being in all those cases a final judgment on demurrer. Chap. 19 of the Code, which prescribes the procedure to revive a judgment, provides for the filing of a petition "in the action," and for answer "in the same manner complaints are required to be answered." It further provides that: "if the court decides to revive the judgment, in whole or in part, it shall so order, and the papers and proceedings shall be attached to the original files in the case, and an entry of revivor made in the judgment docket and judgment book." From this it appears that in such a proceeding nothing is presented to the court for determination which af fects the judgment as entered. The petition is filed' in the original action, and the issue is as to the right of a revival of the judgment, as the situation is when the petition is filed. In this case the court determined an issue of law raised by the demurrer, which alleged that the petition. did not "state facts sufficient to warrant the issuance of said writ," and that it appeared "on the face of said petition that the alleged judgment is not one which can lawfully be revived by the court." Whether the court held that the petition was lacking in some matters prescribed in the Code, or that the judgment for some reason could not lawfully be revived, cannot now be determined from the record. If the former was the ground of the ruling, in the absence of any further action by the court or the petitioner, there is nothing in the record which can be regarded as res adjudicata. If the court held that the judgment was invalid by statutory limitation, in reliance upon a supposed ruling by the Court of Appeals (Jones v. Stockgrowers' Bank, 17 Colo. App. 79, 67 Pac. 177) such holding, being wrong under more recent decisions, was not effective to invalidate a judgment, as to which there was no need of revival. Had the court overruled the demurrer, and entered an order of revivor it would not have changed the situation, since the judgment was already in force for several years to come. Likewise a refusal to enter such an order could not have affected the judgment. In any view of the case we cannot regard the abandoned proceeding in the District Court as affecting the rights of the claimant. The judgment had not expired by limitation. It was in force when the act of 1901 (chap. 88, Laws of 1901), was passed, and was thereby made valid for the term of twenty years from the date of its entry, that is, until 1917. Balfe v. Rumsey, 55 Colo. 97, 133 Pac. 97. The County Court was right in allowing the claim, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE GABBERT and Mr. JUSTICE HILL Concur. [No. 8738.] VAN KLEECK V. RAMER, SECRETARY OF STATE. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Referendum. A declaration by the General Assembly that an enactment is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety," is conclusive, and not subject to review by the courts. (10-14.) SCOTT, J., dissented. Error to Denver District Court. Hon. CHARLES C. BUTLER, Judge. Mr. WILLIAM W. GRANT, JR., and Mr. WILLIAM E. HUTTON, for plaintiff in error. Hon. FRED FARRAR, Attorney General, and Mr. CLARENCE M. HAWKINS, Assistant, for defendant in error. In 1910, section 1 of article V of the Constitution of the State was amended so as to read as follows: "Section 1. The legislative power of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the General Assembly, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section or part of any act of the General Assembly. The first power hereby reserved by the people is the initiative, and at least eight per cent of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by pe |