
    Moore & Valentino v. Read.
    Under the facts, the allowance of $25 to the garnishee for expense of making his answer, was not erroneous.
    March 12, 1890.
    Garnishment. Before Judge Atkinson. Glynn superior court. May term, 1889.
    Moore & Valentino sued Carlton & Sleeper for $296.-05, and caused summons of garnishment to be issued and served upon Read, who answered denying any indebtedness. In this answer he stated that he had been to the expense of employing counsel to advise him in making it, and had incurred the necessary expense of their fees for that service; and prayed that he might recover of the plaintiffs the reasonable and fair fees of his attorneys at law for advising him and preparing his answer. The answer was traversed by the plaintifis, and the issue thus made was determined in Read’s favor by the verdict of a jury; but on the trial no evidence was introduced as to the services of the attorneys or their value, and no verdict was asked for attorney’s fees, nor were they mentioned in the' verdict. About a month after the verdict was rendered, Read moved the court, upon the prayer of his answer, to grant him a judgment against plaintifis for a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees. The plaintifis objected on the ground that they were not liable for counsel fees of the garnishee, under the facts of the case.' This objection was overruled, and the plaintifis excepted.
    An attorney at law testified that the preparation and filing of the answer of the garnishee in the case were worth $25. One of Read’s attorneys testified that, in order to ascertain whether Read was indebted to the defendants and what his rights and' duties were and what his answer should be, his attorneys had to examine a long contract, and the accounts between the parties, the same being extended over a long period of time, etc. The plaintifis objected to this testimony on the ground that the. services the'rein mentioned could not be considered by the court or by the witnesses in estimating the value of the services and the fee for preparing the answer. The objection was overruled, and the plaintifis exeejited. There was testimony of two other attorneys at law that, for preparing an answer in the case, from five to ten dollars was a sufficient fee, but if counsel were compelled to examine a long contract and look into mutual accounts between the garnishee and defendants in order to prepare the answer, the services would be worth twenty-five dollars or more. The plaintifis introduced no testimony. The court awarded the garnishee twenty-five dollars, to be taxed as costs for Ms attorney’s fees for making and preparing the answer. The plaintiffs excepted. Both sides cited 82 Ga. 558.
    Johnson, Smith & Johnson, for plaintiffs.
    Courtland Symmes, by J. H. Lumpkin, contra.
    
   Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiffs sued out a summons of garnishment, which was served upon Read, and Read employed counsel to answer the same. The garnishee was discharged, under the answer. Read claimed for expenses in answering the garnishment $25, and submitted evidence to the court upon that question, which showed that it was worth from $10 to $25 to answer the garnishment. It was shown by the evidence that his counsel had to examine a very lengthy account between Read and the debtors, in order to ascertain whether Read was indebted to them anything or not. The court allowed him $25, and this is assigned as error. We think there was no error in this judgment, and it is Affirmed.  