
    William Solomon, plaintiff in error, vs. Daniel Lowry, defendant in error.
    That portion of the Act of October 13th, 18Y0, which allows the claimant of land subject to an execution to set-off against the judgment the losses of the claimant, by the late war, is in violation of Article 1, section 10, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and is, therefore, void.
    Constitutional Law. Relief Act of 1870. Set-off. Before Judge Parrott. Bartow Superior Court. March Term, 1871.
    Solomon owned a fi.fa., founded upon a mortgage made in 1858, levied upon certain land as the property of Cooper, the assignee. Lowry claimed the land. Cooper had sold it, in 1861, to Dodd, and Dodd sold it, in 1863, to Lowry. It was admitted that the land was subject to the fi.fa.; but Lowry claimed the benefit of the 11th section of the Relief Act of 13th of October, 1870. He offered to prove that he, by and in consequence of the late war, had lost corn, oats, etc., taken by the armies, and a slave, etc., amounting to $4,000 00. Over plaintiff’s objection this was allowed; the Court held said section constitutional, and, under his charge, that they could do so, the jury found the property subject, but that “ claimant is entitled to a set-off, on account of his losses by the war, to the amount of the judgment.” Said rulings and charge are assigned as error.
    Warren Akin, for plaintiff in error.
    A. Johnson, for defendant.
   McCay, Judge.

This ease turns upon the same principles as the ease of Gunn vs. Hendry, from the Pataula Circuit. I have, in my concurring opinion, stated the grounds upon which I think this part of the Act of October 13th, 1870, cannot be sustained.

Judgment reversed.  