
    Reist, Appellant, v. Reist.
    
      Judgment—Issue to determine validity of judgment—Evidence.
    
    On an issue’to determine the validity of a judgment entered in the lifetime of the plaintiff, and opened after his death, the case is for the jury where the evidence for the defendant tends strongly to show that the judgment, with the exception of a small amount, had been paid in the plaintiff’s lifetime, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’s administrator for the lesser amount will be sustained.
    Argued May 20, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 362, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1891, No. 219, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Clayton H. Reist v. William A. Reist.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Fell, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Issue to determine the validity of a judgment. Before Livingston, P. J.
    At the trial it appeared that in April, 1891, judgment was entered by Clayton A. Reist against William A. Reist for $1,250. After plaintiff’s death a rule to open the judgment was made absolute, and at the trial of the issue the defendant offered evidence which tended to show that he had bought a stock of goods from plaintiff for $1,250, and gave the judgment in controversy. That thereafter it was agreed between himself and plaintiff that execution should issue on the judgment, and that plaintiff should buy in the stock at a price sufficient to satisf}*- certain other small executions, and then close out the goods b}' private sale, and give defendant credit for whatever should be realized and satisfy the judgment. J. Frank Reist was placed in charge qf the store, and he testified that an amount had been turned over to plaintiff from proceeds of sales to pay the judgment, less a small sum.
    The plaintiff presented this point:
    The plaintiff asks the court to decline to submit the case to the jury, but to reinstate the judgment with full force and effect iess amount realized at the sheriff’s sale, $58.77. Answer : Refused.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $158.67. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      
      Error assigned was refusal of point as above.
    
      U. M. North, with him A. O. Reinoehl, for appellant.
    
      II. M. Nouser and John W. Appel, of Appel §• Appel, for appellee.
    July 17, 1901:
   Pee Curiam,

The plaintiff asked the court to decline to submit the case to the jury but to reinstate the judgment with full force and effect, less amount realized at the sheriff’s sale, to wit: $58.77. The court refused this point. The judgment was opened by the court on testimony deemed sufficient, and the trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $158.67. We cannot say that it was error to open the judgment and we therefore affirm it.

Judgment affirmed.  