Case Name: John McK. Gunn, plaintiff in error, vs. Charles F. Barry, sheriff, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 44 Ga. 351
Docket Number: 
Parties: John McK. Gunn, plaintiff in error, vs. Charles F. Barry, sheriff, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 351–354

Head Matter:
John McK. Gunn, plaintiff in error, vs. Charles F. Barry, sheriff, defendant in error.
Where a party petitioned the Court for a mandamus nisi against the sheriff to compel his levy of a ft. fa. placed in his hands upon a hornet stead of realty set apart under the law, upon the ground that the Ac-of 1868, so far as it prevented the levy of ay?, fa. on such property or a judgment,/?, fa. in existence before the setting apart of such home stead, aud granted a larger amount of exemption than existed under the law at the time of the contract, was unconstitutional and void, and the Court held the act valid, and refused the mandamus : Held, That this was not error in the Court, under the rulings of the Court affirming the constitutionality of the Act, and protecting the sheriff from rule on account of its provisions from his refusing to levy said fi. fa. McCay, Judge, dissenting.
Homestead Act. Retroactive legislation. Before Judge Harrell. Randolph Superior Court. May Term, 1871.
In 1866, Gunn obtained a judgmeut against Hart, and fi. fa. issued thereon. Under the Homestead Act of 3d of October, 1868, Hart had certain lands set apart as his homestead. Subsequently, Gunn tried to get the sheriff to levy his fi. fa. on said land, but he would not, only because the same had been so set apart. Gunn, reciting these facts, asked the Court for a mandamus to compel such levy, upon the ground that, as to this prior indebtedness, said Homestead Act was not operative under the Constitution of the United States. The Court held it was, and refused to grant the mandamus. That is assigned as error.
John T. Clare ; Hood & Kiddoo, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant.

Opinion:
Lochrane, Chief Justice.
The question presented by the record in this ease has been heretofore decided, as to its merits, by the previous adjudications of this Court, and, upon the doctrine of stare deeisis, we concur in the ruling made upon this subject. The only matter before the Court is, whether our brother below erred in refusing a mandamus compelling the sheriff to levy & fi.fa. in his hands upon property set apart as a homestead under a fi.fa. in existence previous to the setting apart of such property as a homestead. And within the previous adjudications of the Court upon this subject we are of opinion that the Court committed no error in refusing to command the sheriff to commit a trespass ; for equity restrains trespasses, and the Courts will not by mandamus command their perpetration.
Judgment affirmed.