Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/422

 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 09 U. 8. should be. See Analell v. Martin, 24 Kansas, 334; Myers v. � Kotham, 29 Kansas, 19; Te#t v. Citizens' Bank, 36 Kansas, 457; Mawbinney v. Doane, 40 Kansas, 681; Te. tt v. Deck, 41 Kansas, 492; Brad/oral v. Loan Co., 47 Kansas, 587; Raft v. State, 48 Kansas, 45; Railroad Co. v. Bt, 55 Kansas, 661; New Hampshire,Bank Company v. BOY./, 57 Kansas, 812; Kansas, 487. As to the necessity of reviving judgments against municipal corporations within tle statutory periods of time, see Brock- wa v. Oswego Towaship, 4 Pac. Rep. 79; Ware v. P/eazant Grove Townhip, 59 Pac. Rep. 1089; City o! Chanute v. Trader, 132 U.S. 210; F/e/d v. Toumship o] Oswego, 28 Fed. Rep. 55; Coulan v. Doull, 133 U.S. 596; M'Ale' v. Cla Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 665; La]aette Co. v. Wonderly, 92 Fed. Rep. 313. MR. JUSTICE Dx� delivered the opinion of the court. This is a proceeding to review the judgment of the Su9reme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, affirming the judgment of the District Court of Noble County in that Territory, de- nying a peremptory writ of mandamus to the plaintiff in error, also plaintiff below, seeking to compel the recognition of cer- tain judgment and the levy of taxes by the city officers of the city of Perry, a city of,the first class, in Nob],e County. The action was begun March 12, 1906, in the District Court upon a petition, which set forth the ownership in the plaintiff of judgments against the city of Perry, rendered, wj_'th two ex- ceptions, in the year 1898; the other two rendered in January and March, 1899, and aggregating the sum of $[�4.51 in- cluding interest and costs. ' The petition avers that these judgments were rendered on warrants issued by the city of Perry upon the general fund. of the city; that no funds having been provided for the pay- ment of plaintiff's and certain other judgments, on Decem- bet 3, 1901, the judgment creditors of the city entered ino an

�