Packard

1. It is contended by appellant (plaintiff) that the court below erred in admitting in evidence the entry of a judgment in the judgment book of the district court. It is urged that the only competent evidence of the judgment Avas the judgment-roll. But, subsequently to the introduction of the book by defendant, the roll was introduced by plaintiff. It is said the plaintiff introduced the roll for the single purpose of proving the judgment to be void. The plaintiff,

, having cured the defect in defendant’s evidence of the judgment, cannot rely upon his specific objection that the judgment-book did not prove the judgment. The validity or invalidity of the judgment is a very different matter.

2. The statute of limitations was sufficiently pleaded by the reference in the answer to sections of the code: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 458.

3. But it is further claimed the judgment is void on the face of the roll, and was not, therefore, “the judgment of a competent court,” such as could set the limitation running: Code Civ. Proc., see. 322. ‘ ‘ The decree or judgment of a competent court,” mentioned in section 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure,'is a decree or judgment adjudging that a party,…