Case Name: John A. Bullard, executor, plaintiff in error, vs. Jesse A. Leaptrot et al., defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1876-07
Citations: 57 Ga. 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: John A. Bullard, executor, plaintiff in error, vs. Jesse A. Leaptrot et al., defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
John A. Bullard, executor, plaintiff in error, vs. Jesse A. Leaptrot et al., defendants in error.
When a younger fi. fa., by process of garnishment, brings money into court, and an older judgment takes all the money, the expense of bringing in the fund, including reasonable counsel fees, should be paid out of the fund, and all expenses, as well as the net sum realized by the older judgment, should be credited on the older fi. fa.. The younger judgment, realizing no part of the fruit of its diligence, should pay no part of the expense. It is bad enough to lose all the fruit of its enterprise and see another consume it; it would be too bad to make it pay for that from which it realized nothing; no part of the expenses should, therefore, be credited on the younger fi. fa.
Judgments. Executions. Garnishment. Before Judge Johnson. Washington Superior Court. September Adjourned Term, 1875.
Reported in the opinion.
E. W. Cullen; Langmade & Evans, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants.

Opinion:
Jackson, Judge.
Leaptrot held a younger judgment against one Riddle, and by process of garnishment brought $650 00 into court. Bullard held an older judgment and claimed the money on it. The court directed the money to be paid to his ji.fa., after paying all expenses, including $100 00 attorney's fees, and ordered the whole sum, fees and all, to be credited on the older ji.fa. Bullard excepted to all expenses being credited on his fi. fa., but insisted that the younger y?, fa., which brought in the money but realized nothing, should be credited with its part, pro rata, of expenses.
We think that the court did right. The statute is plain— Code sec. 3545 — and the sense of the law equally plain. Bullard has reaped where he did not sow; indeed, he has gathered in his barn what he neither sowed, reaped or otherwise labored for. Surely he ought to pay the laborer, and not insist that the younger fi. fa., which got nothing, should pay any part. Its pro rata of expense is nothing, because it got nothing.
Judgment affirmed.