Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/420

394 Rh

The section of the Oklahoma statute permitting the enforcement of a judgment by execution and providing for the dormancy of such judgment if execution is not issued within five years, has no application to judgments against municipalities in this Territory which are collectible only by the levy of taxes which are required by the law to be made to create a judgment fund out of which to pay such judgments. The cases of Hart v. City of New Orleans, 12 Fed. Rep. 29; ''State ex rel. Courter v. Buckles, 35 N. E. Rep. 846; Laredo v. Benavides'', 25 S. W. Rep. 482, cited by Supreme Court of Oklahoma, reviewed and distinguished from the case at bar.

Oklahoma law provides for collecting judgments by tax instead of execution.

That it is and has been throughout the life of all these judgments the duty of the city of Perry to make a levy of five mills on the dollar to provide a fund with which to pay these judgments is clearly declared by our statute. Sec. 1, art. 5, p. 83, Statutes of 1897; Session Laws of 1899, § 1, c. 8, p. 103; Wilson's Stat. of 1903, § 466.

The cases cited by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the cases of Beadles v. Fry, 15 Oklahoma, 423, are inapplicable to the facts in the case at bar. Newton v. Arthur, 55 Pac. Rep. 446; Israel v. Nichols, 14 Pac. Rep. 438; Brockway v. Oswego Township, 4 Pac. Rep. 79; and Baker v. Hummer, 2 Pac. Rep. 808, discussed and distinguished. Statutes of limitation do not run against municipal obligations of the character of judgments in Oklahoma. Barnes v. Turner, 14 Oklahoma, 284; Freehill v. Porter, 4 Pac. Rep. 646; Lincoln Co. v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529.

The placing of the obligations in question into judgments which are to be paid out of the judgment fund of the city, does not in any way affect the principles applied in the Barnes or Duke v. Turner case. United States v. County of Macon, 99 U.S. 582; ''A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Territory of New Mxico'', 72 Pac. Rep. 14; Darcy v. Mumpford, 58 Georgia, 119; ''United States ex rel. Field v. Township of Oswego'', 28 Fed. Rep. 55.