those proceedings, which start the five year period for dormancy. For example, in Cyr, the Kansas Supreme Court found that even though the purpose of a contempt proceeding serves the same remedial purpose as an execution, garnishment, income withholding proceeding, and proceeding in aid of execution-namely to aid in collecting a favorable money judgment-contempt proceedings are not enumerated in § 60-2403, and therefore, do not operate to keep the judgment alive. 815 P.2d at 100. See also DeKalb Swine Breeders, Inc. v. Woolwine Supply Co., 248 Kan. 673, 809 P.2d 1223 (1991) (strictly construing the statutory language of § 60-2403 and holding that pending garnishment proceedings do not toll time period for dormancy purposes); First Nat’l Bank v. Harper, 161 Kan. 536, 169 P.2d 844 (1946) (<HOLDING>); St. Joseph Dev. Corp. v. Sequenzia, 25
holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed holding  2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused