BEADLES ?. SMYSER. A?ment for Appenaak 39? BEADL ES v. SMYSER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PF?RRY, OKLAHOMA. ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE SUPRE M'? COUR? OF ? TERRITORY OF OEI?J?IOMA. While this court oannot review judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma unlem the amount involved exeeec? M?]O, where the judgment also directly involve? the validity of other judgments the areaunt in controversy may be meazured by the aggregate of such judg- The principtee of gght a?ld justice upon which the doctrhle of e?toppe/?t ? re?t?, are applicable to municipal corporationa ?ghere public property of a municipality cannot be seized on executio? and the municipality enters into a valid agreement with judip?mt cred- iters to apply the jad?nent fund to judgmente in ord? o/ retry ? complie? therewith, it cannot, after the expiration of the ?tatutory period when a judgment becomez dormant for failure to i?ue execution, plead the ?tatute of limitations aB a bar to thee judgment? not yet reached for payment under the agreement. The municipality i. e?opped both on tbe contract and on the g?und of equital?e e?top?, ?d ?o ? u to judgments s?,ainzt a city in Oldahom? 17 Oklahoma, 162, rever?d. .T?E fact? are stated in the opinion. Mr. A. G. C. Bierer, with whom Mr. $. H. Harris and Mr. Frank Dale were on the briefs, for plaintiff in error and appellant: The action being in mandamus to compel a city to recog- nize the validity of plaintiff's jud?nents and to pay out the moneys already accrued in the judgment fund upon these iudgments, and to continue to make levies to enforce the same, the statutory period of limitation fixed by law for civil actions does not run against the relief asked. Duke, May?, ? al. v. Turner ?t a/., 204 U.S. 623. J
�
