
    C. F. Winton et al v. J. W. Myers.
    (Filed Aug. 25, 1899.)
    1. Attachment — Action on Undertaking — Pleading. In an action to recover upon an undertaking given to secure the discharge of attached property and the restoration of such property to the defendant, the condition of which is “ that the defendant will perform the judgment of the court in said action,’’ it is a sufficient allegation of a breach of the conditions of the undertaking to aver that the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in such action, what the amount of such judgment was, and that said judgment was unpaid, in whole or in part.
    2. Damages — Measure of — Burden of Proof. In an action upon such an undertaking, the failure to pay the judgment is the breach of the conditions of the bond. The amount of the judgment an l costs, with interest, is prima facie the measure of damages, and, when it is shown on the trial that a valid judgment was rendered, it will be presumed to be unpaid until the contrary is shown. Tne burden of showing payment is on the defendant.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from the Probate Court of Kay County; before Robert A. Neff, Probate Judge.
    
    
      J. R. Scott and T. J. Blevins, for appellants.
    
      B. K. Woodson and Dale c6 Bierer, for appellee.
    Action by J. W. Myers against C. F. Winton and others on bond given to secure discharge of attached property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    In March, 1897, J. W. Myers brought an action in the probate court of Kay county against O. F. Winton, and caused a wirit of attachment to issue and' be levied upon the goods and chattels of Winton. Before judgment in the attachment proceedings, the defendant Winton, with the other plaintiffs in error in this cause as ' sureties, executed to the plaintiff an undertaking for the discharge of the attachment and restitution of the attached property. The condition of the undertaking was to the effect that the defendant would perform the judgment of the* court. The attached goods were restored to the defendant. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for the sum of $100, and for costs taxed at $85. The judgment was not paid, and Myers brought this action to recover on the undertaking.
    The petition averred the facts above stated, and, further, that the judgment was in full force ‘and effect, and unpaid, in whole or in part; that execution had been issued, and returned, “No goods found.” The defendants answered by general denial. Subsequently they applied for leave to withdraw their answer, and tO‘ file a demurrer to the petition. This application was orerruled. The cause went to trial, and, in support of the allegations of the petition, the plaintiff, introduced in evidence the record of the former judgment, the undertaking, the execution, and return, and rested. The defendants at the trial objected to the introduction of any evidence by the plaintiff, for the reason that the petition failed to' state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which objeción the court overruled. After the plaintiff rested his case, the defendants interposed a demurrer to the evidence. The demurrer was overruled, and defendants declined to submit ‘any evidence, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against all the defendants for tlife amount of tlie former judgment and costs. Tbe defendants appealed.
   Opinion of the court by

Burford, C. J.:

The plaintiffs in error urge but two objections to tlie rulings of tbe trial court: First, tbat tbe petition of tbe plaintiff does not aver facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that tbe demurrer ■of tbe defendants to plaintiff’s evidence should have been sustained.

We fail to discover any merit in tbe first contention. It is urged tbat there is no allegation of damages or a breach of tbe condition of the bond. The bond sued on was a statutory bond, and authorized by section 229 of tbe Code of Civil Procedure. Tbe condition of tbe bond was “tbat the defendants shall perform the judgment of tlie court in said action.” Tbe failure to pay tbe judgment was tbe breach of the conditions of tbe bond, and the measure of damages was prima facie the amount of the judgment, with interest, and the costs taxed in said cause. Tbe petition alleged tbat the judgment was rendered, stated the amount of the judgment and costs, and specifically averred “that tbe said judgment is now valid, subsisting, and unpaid, in whole or in part.” These allegations were sufficient to withstand tbe demurrer and to support tbe judgment 'rendered.

It is contended that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, because no testimony was introduced as to any breach of the conditions of the bond ■or that the judgment was unpaid. The evidence showed tbat a judgment had been rendered, and entered of record; also that an execution bad been issued, and returned nulla dona. When it was once shown that a valid judgment had been obtained, and entered of record, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, the same condition of things will be presumed to exist at thie time of the trial. A state of facts once shown to exist is presumed to continue.

Payment is always a matter of defense, and, as-a general rule, must be specifically pleaded and proven by him who claims payment. The burden of showing payment was on the-defendants, and no error w-as committed in overruling the demurrer to the evidence. (Lerche v. Brasher, 104, N. Y. 157, 10 N. E. 58; Lovelock v. Gregg, [Colo. Sup.] 23 Pac. 86.)

There is a further objection mad)e that plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the undertaking to the petition. This objection was not made before trial. The demurrer to-the petition, or objection to introduction of any testimony on the grounds that the petition failed to state a cause of' action, would not present this question. The objection should have been made by motion to require the plaintiff to attach a copy of the bond to the petition. (Burnes v. Simpson, 9 Kan. 658; Andrews v. Alcorn, 13 Kan. 351)

We find no judicial error in the record. The judgment of the probate court of Kay county is affirmed, at the-costs of plaintiffs in error

All of the Justices concurring.  