
    John C. Addison, plaintiff in error, vs. Thomas Fayette, defendant in error.
    When a defendant in execution filed an affidavit in accordance with the 7th section of the Act of 1868, known as the Belief Law, it was error in the Court to dismiss the affidavit, on the ground that said Act was unconstitutional. He should have permitted the defendant to make the motion provided for in the 2d section of the Act.
    Relief Act. Constitutional Law. Before Judge Davis. Habersham Superior Court. April Term, 1869.
    
      Addison and another, as makers, and still another, as endorser, made and delivered their promissory note to Fayette for a certain lot of land in said county, and had Fayette to convey the lot by deed to the Methodist Church South. Fayette sued them on the note, arid had judgment in April, 1862. In November, 1868, the fi.fa, which was issued upon said judgment, was levied upon said lot as the property of the defendants. Addison filed’an affidavit, under the second and seventh sections of the Relief Act of 1868, stating his desire to have the benefit of said Act. The Sheriff accepted the affidavit, and returned the fi. fa. and affidavit to the Court. ■ When the cause was called in its order, Fayette’s attorney moved to dismiss, it upon-the ground that said sections were unconstitutional. On that ground it was dismissed, and of that complaint is made here.
    C. H. Suttón, G. McMillan, by L. E. Bleckley, for plaintiff in error. -
    Phillip Martin, by A. T. Akerman, for defendant in error.
   McCay; J.

This case must be controlled by the cases of White vs. Haslett and White vs. Herndon, decided at this terin. We held in those cases that the Act of 1868 was constitutional, even as applied to judgments. If the defendant has any equitable reason why this judgment should not be collected, he has a right to pursue the course pointed out by that Act to get his remedy. So far as he has gone in this case he has pursued the very words of the Act. He was - entitled to tender to the plaintiff an issue^as provided by the Act. This he was prevented from doing by the dissmisal of the case, and we reverse the judgment dismissing the case.  