delivered a dissenting opinion to the effect that
the Code did not change the formerly established rule that an execution could issue in such an action; that although ejectment is not an action for injuring the land, it is one for taking, detaining and converting property.
All the other judges except James 0. Smith, J., concurred in the opinion of Hunt, J.
Order granting a new trial reversed, and judgment on the verdict affirmed, with costs.