Case Name: Thomas Hambrick, administrator, plaintiff in error, vs. Thomas S. Crawford, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1874-07
Citations: 53 Ga. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Hambrick, administrator, plaintiff in error, vs. Thomas S. Crawford, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Thomas Hambrick, administrator, plaintiff in error, vs. Thomas S. Crawford, defendant in error.
Tin's case is controlled by the decision in the case of Sarah Kelly vs. H. H. Brooks et al., 50 Georgia Reports, 582, and there was .error in the refusal of the court to grant the revoking order which was asked for.
McCay, Judge, dissented.
Judgments. Statute of limitations. Before Judge Hopkins. Clayton Superior Court.- March Term, 1874.
This case ivas submitted to the presiding judge without the intervention of a jury, upon the following facts:
At the May term, 1864, of Clayton superior court Thomas Plambrick, as administrator upon the estate of Sarah Jones, deceased, recovered a judgment against James F. Johnson, J. H. Johnson and Thomas S. Crawford, for $1,675 00 principal, and $786 00 interest. At the March term, 1869, the defendants moved to vacate said judgment on the ground that the consideration thereof was negro slaves. At the following September term this motion was sustained by Judge Pope, then presiding. About September 1st, 1873, the execution based upon said judgment Avas levied upon the property of Crawford, Avho, upon November 1st of that year, filed his affidavit of illegality, setting up the aforesaid vacating order.
It was also agreed that the question thus presented might be decided as though a motion to vacate said order Avas uoav pending and ready for a hearing.
The court sustained the illegality, and plaintiff excepted.
Peeples & Howell, for plaintiff in error.
Speer & Stewart, for defendant.

Opinion:
Trippe, Judge.
The decision in Kelly vs. Brooks et al., 50 Georgia, 582, controls this case. The judgment which has been vacated by an order of the court on the ground that the consideration of the debt was a slave, was not dormant when this motion to rescind that order was made, and should have been granted: See Tyson vs. McAfee, 50 Georgia, 279, and Prescott vs. Bennett et al., Ibid., 266, and Mosely vs. Mitchell, decided at the present term.
Judgment reversed.