CI?'TOB? TF, RM? 1907. Appeals and writs of error are allowed from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to this court where the value of the pwp- erty or the amount in controversy, to he ascertained by the affidavit of either party or other competent witne?, exceeds $5,000: Supp;ement U' S. Revised Stats. vol. 1, p. 724. We think the judgment in this case involve? the validity of .all the pl?ntlff's judgments, and that the amount in con- troversy is not simply the fund in the hands of the treasurer, but the amount of all the judgments concerning whlch?relief was sought and which were directly ?ljudicated to be barred by the statute of limitations. The question made in the caso is whetl?er the judgments are dormant by the statute of limitations o. ? the Territory of Okla- homa 'or fa?ure to ?me execution thereon for the period of five years, and because the same were not revived within one year ?ter they became dormant. The statutes of Oklahoma in 2 Wilson's Statutes of 1903, provide as follows :' Section 4635. "If execution shall not he sued out within five years from the date of any judgment that now is or may here- after he rendered, in any court of record in this Territory, or if five years shall have int?.rvcned between the date of t!?e last ex- ecution issued on such judgment and the t?me of suing out another writ of execution thereon, such judgment shall be- come dormant, a0d shall cease to 'operate as a lien on the tate of the judgment debtor." Section 4623 is as follows: "An order to revive an action against the representative or successor of a defendant shall not be made without the con- sent of such representative or successor unle? in one year from the time it could have been first made." And section 4630 provide?; "I? a judgment becom? dormant it may be revived in the ?ame manner as pr?cribed for revivhn�tions before judg- ment." It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that this case is governed by the ruling of th?s court in Duke, Major
�
