
    
      J. J. Dupong vs. Charles Watkins. South Western Rail Road Bank vs. the same.
    
    Money in the Sheriff s hands, though subject to levy is not subject to the lien of a fi fa. If, therefore, it is assigned before levy, the assignee will be entitled to it, in preference to the execution creditor.
    
      Before Frost, J. at Colleton, Spring Term, 1845.
    Rules were taken out against the sheriff of Colleton district, to shew cause why he had not paid the executions of jd. fa in the cases stated. The return of the sheriff shewed that in December, 1844, he had received $507 15, for the defendant, Charles Watkins, under an execution, at his suit, against one Creighton ; and that he had paid to two executions, elder than those stated, all the fund, except a balance of $91 53, which, on the 17th February, 1845, he had paid to the attorney of Michael O’Conner, pursuant to an assignment of Charles Watkins to the said O’Connor of “ any moneys in the hands of sheriff Rumph now, or to come to his hands by virtue of the fi. fa. in Watkins vs. Creighton,” (fee. dated 18th November, 1844, and entered in respondent’s office the the 28th of the same month. The executions in the cases stated were lodged in the sheriff’s office before the assignment.
    The rule was made absolute, on the ground that the executions had a lien on the money in the hands of the sheriff, as soon as it was received, which could not be defeated by an assignment of the defendant.
    The sheriff appealed.
    
      E. Rhett, for the motion.
    
      R. DeTreville, contra.
   Curia, per Frost, J.

In the case of Reid, for Jones, assignee, vs. Ramey, sheriff, decided at the last session of the Court in Columbia, it was ruled that the assignment of the plaintiff in execution of' the funds in the sheriff’s hands, collected under the execution, should be preferred to the claim of the execution creditor of the plaintiff to the same fund under the lien of his execution. That case confirmed what is said by Judge O’Neall in the case of Adams vs. Crimager, 1 McM. 310, that though, generally, money is the subject of levy, it is not also subject to the lien of an execution. In this case, before the money was received by the sheriff, Watkins, the plaintiff in the execution, had made an assignment of it to O’Connor. Immediately as it was paid to the sheriff, the assignee had a legal claim to it. It was not subject to the lien of the executions against the plaintiff; and under the authority of Means vs. Vance, 1 Bail. 40, the circuit court should not have interfered to prevent the payment to the assignee by ordering the fund to be paid to the executions.

The motion is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Ward-law, JJ. concurred. 
      
      
         Ante, p. 4.
     