Case ID: ga_43/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Lochrane, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Columbus Iron Works, plaintiffs in error, vs. G. Aenchbecker et al., defendants in error.
    Where a motion was made to set-off losses against a judgment, under the Act of October 13th, 1870, and the Judge sustained the demurrer to such motion and dismissed it, upon the ground that the judgment being for mesne profits, arising out of a suit of ejectment, was not within the provisions of said Act:
    
      Meld, That such judgment by the Court was not error.
    Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. November Term, 1870.
    Aenchbecker et al., brought ejectment against The Columbus Iron Works, and in January, 1870, recovered the land, and a judgment for mesne profits during the time defendant had been in possession, to-wit: from the.....day of...., 1863, to January, 1870. With the writ of possession a fi. fa. issued for these mesne profits. The president of the company made affidavit that The Columbus Iron Works lost machinery, etc., worth $50,000 00, “ by or in consequence of the late war against the United States, by the people of this and other States; that said judgment was founded upon a contract made prior to June, 1865, and upon the trial of said cause the benefit of the Relief Act of 1868 was not allowed, to said defendant.” The prayer was that these losses be set-off against said judgment, under the Relief Act of 1870. ■ Plaintiffs’ counsel demurred to said plea and prayer, saying this was not such a judgment as was contemplated by said Act of 1870. The Court sustained the demurrer, and that is assigned as error.
    Peabody & Brannon, for plaintiffs in error.
    H. L. Benning ; James M. Russell, for defendants,
    said the Relief Act of 1870, only covered demands arising ex contractu.
    
   Lochrane, Chief Justice.

The judgment of the Court below in this case, was based, we presume, upon the ground that a judgment for mesne profits, obtained in a suit growing out of an action of ejectment, was not within the provisions of the Relief Act of October 13th, 1870, so as to let in equitable losses by the results of the late war, etc. At least we so hold the law to be, and affirm the judgment sustaining the demurrer, under the facts in this case.

Judgment affirmed.