?9 U.S. Ar?unent for Ap? The city of Perry recognized these judgments as valid judg- ments and continued to levy taxes to provide money in the judgment fund to pay these judgments, and mandamns, which is the only execution against a municipality, could not have issued until the city refused to recognize and pay the judg- ments in 1905. Alter v. State, 86 N. W. Rep. 1080. The city of Perry having ratified and approved the agree- ment among the judgment creditors to pay these judgments in their order of rendition, and having carded out this agree- ment in the levy of taxes and the payment out of the judg- ment fund of these tax moneys for all these years, should now be held to be estopped from pleading the dormancy of these judgments even if otherwise they could have become dormant. Mr. A. N. Wh? and Mr. H. B. Martin, for defendants in error and appellees, submitted: This court has no jurisdiction of this action, be,.auze the amount involved is less than $5,000.00. If the validity of plaintiff's judgments were conceded, the only cause of action appearing upon the face of the alternative writ is against Fry, the treasurer of the city, and that said cause of action cannot involve more than the amount of money in the hands of the treasurer, which is less than the amount 'nece?ary to give this court Jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the.action. A judgment against a city of the first class under the skat- utes of Oklahoma becomes dormant after five years from the date of its rendition if execution shall not be sued out within that time and such judgment cannot be revived without the consent of the judgment debtor unless it be revived within one year from the time it becomes dormant. Section 4337, statutes of Oklahoma, 1893; La?a?2te Count? v. Wonderl?l, 92 Fed. Rep. 313; Bead/es v. F?, 82. Pac. Rep. 1041, and cases cited; Statutes of Oklahoma, 1893, �325 and 4332 All these statutes were adopted from the State of K?,na?.?, ?hoee courts have frequently construed them-?s we contend they
�
