
    S. W. Caruthers, plaintiff in error, vs. H. J. Sprayberry, et al., defendants in error.
    Where the levying officer neglects to levy a fi. fa. in time to make the money by the next Term of the Court to which it is returnable, relying on the promise of defendant to pay it, and an injunction is interposed, having no meritin it, and on account of which the officer has not, m fact, been prevented from makingthe money, he shall be liable on rule to pay the money himself.
    In Equity, in Catoosa Superior Court, Spring Term, 1858. Judge Tbippe presiding.
    McConnell ; Hackett ; and Caruthers, for plaintiff in error.
    Sprayberry, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Lumpkin J.

delivering the opinion.

We see no distinction between this case and the case of Neal vs. Rice. (11 Ga. Rep. 297.)

Whenever the Sheriff neglects to levy a fi. fa. until it is too late to make the money for the next Term of the Court to which it is returnable, and an injunction is granted, as in b oth of these cases, which has no merit in it, and on account of which the officer has not been prevented from collecting the fi. fa., there is no great hardship in compelling him to pay the money himself. In every such case, he has to rely upon the word of the defendant, whether the injunction be interposed or not. And we can well imagine, that a contrary rule might lead to collusive combinations between the debtor and the Sheriff. At any rate, the point has been decided; and we feel disposed to let it rest, until revised by paramount authority. ,

Judgment affirmed.  