Case Name: Thos. G. Waters, Sheriff, et al. plaintiffs in error, vs. Greenway Brothers & Co. defendants
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1855-04
Citations: 17 Ga. 592
Docket Number: No. 97
Parties: Thos. G. Waters, Sheriff, et al. plaintiffs in error, vs. Greenway Brothers & Co. defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
No. 97.
Thos. G. Waters, Sheriff, et al. plaintiffs in error, vs. Greenway Brothers & Co. defendants.
'Whore a client does not participate in a fund brought into Court, but is - postponed to older liens, the Attorney is not entitled to commissions upon the money.
Rule, in Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge Tripp®, . December Term, 1854.
A sum of $1100 had been raised by levy and sale, by order-of Court, under an attachment in favor of Fellows & Co. against A. J. Murray, of the goods and chattels of said Murray.
The money was claimed bj fi. fas. of older date than the attachment in favor of Greenway Brothers & Co. and D. C. Hide & Co. against the firm of Burns & Murray, of which firm A. J. Murray was a party.
Tho Counsel of Fellows & Co. contended that they were entitled to five per cent, of the amount, for having raised and brought the money into Court. This was refused by the Court,,, and this decision is assigned as error.
Underwood, for plaintiff in error.
Printup, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
A large amount of money, to-wit: $1119, having been' raised under an attachment, at the instance of Fellows & Co.. against Andrew J. Murray, was brought into Court by the Sheriff and ordered to be paid over to executions of an older date, in favor of Greenway Brothers and Co. and D. C. Hide & Co. against Burns & Murray.
Before applying the fund to these prior liens, Counsel for-Fellows & Co. claimed to have their commissions allowed upon' the fund, but were refused by the Court, upon the ground, that as their client got no money, the Attorneys were not entitled to fees. And we see no error in the judgment. It does not conflict with the opinion of this Court in McDonald and Napier, (14 Ga. R. 89.)