Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/425

 209 U. 8. Opinion of the Court. legations of the petition, to which the defendant filed an amended answer, in which they set up that each and all of the judgments set out in the alternate writ of mandamus have become dormant because no execution was issued on any of said judgments, and no proceeding begun for the revival of any of them and the same were barred by the statute of limi- tations of the Territory. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment upon the amended answer .and prayed the issuance of a peremptory writ of man- damus upon the grounc that the amended answer failed to state any legal reason why said peremptory writ should not be issued. The defendant moved the court for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that all the judgments were barred by the statute of limitations. The court sustained the motion of the defendant and entered fmal jud. gment in the de- fendant's favor, upon the ground that all the judgments set out in the alternate writ of mandamus have become dormant and are barred by the statute of limitations. Upon proceedings in error in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma this judgment was affirmed on the authority of Beadles v. Fry, 15 Oklahoma, 428. The present case is reported, 17 Oklahoma, 162. The question i first made as to the jurisdiction of this court, because it is averted that the sum of &,000 is not involved, but we are of th opinion that the issue made and decided involved the validity of the $16,000 and upwards, of iudg- merits described in the petition and amended writ. The prayer of the petitioner was for a continuous levy of taxes for the amount permitted by law to be applied in payment of the judgments. The answer set up that all the judgments were barred by the statute of limitations, and the District Court of Noble County determined that the judgments anl each and all of them set out in the petition and alternat writ of mandamus had become dormant and were barred by the statute of limitations. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of' Oklahoma.

�