Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/764

 752 FEDBBAIi BEPOBXEB. �the judgment in the execution docket, which is the book kept and used in Georgia for the ascertainment of Judgment liena. �2. JTJDGMENT — AMENDMBNT— MOKTOAGB. �Where a verdict waa taken at the November term, 1866, of the supe- rior court, for $11,212 principal, " with interest from Aprll 14, 1860," and at the same term a judgment entered thereon for $11,212 princi- pal, and " for dollars and cents for interest to ," �and where the execution docket showed the amount both of principal and interest due on such judgment, and where a nunc pro tune judg- ment for the interest was afterwards rendered at the April term, 1871, of the court, hM, that such judgment for interest had a valid lien from the date of the original judgment, and was superior to the lien of a mortgage taken in 1868 (beteen the dates of the original and amended judgment) by a crediter to secure an antecedent debt. �S, Equitable Euection— Judgmbnt^Mortgagb. �The doctrine of compelling a crediter who has a lien on two funds to resort to that on which another crediter has no lien, is only appli- cable where the two funds are equally accessible to the crediter kav- ing the lien on both. Therefore, a judgment crediter who has a lien , on a fund in court arising from the sale of certain real estate of the debtor, a bankrupt, which has been sold by a committee of creditors of the bankrupt's estate for one-third cash, one-third due in one year from date of sale, and one-third due in two years from that date, will not be decreed to await the collection of these notes, but is entitled to a fund already in court, arising from the sale of land on which another crediter had a mortgage lien, although the mortgage has no lien except upon that fund. �In Equity. Submitted for final decree upon pleadings and evidence. �Lanier de Anderson, for complainants. �mil e Harris and Bacon e Ruther/ord, for defendants. �This case has been previously reported in 2 Woods, 372, and 94 U. S. 664. The facts necessary to an understanding of the decision in this case, now reported, are as follows : �At the November term, 1866, of the superior court of Bibb �coimty, Georgia, Daniel P. Gunn obtained a verdict against �Thomas J. Woolfolk, James H. Woolfolk, and John W. Wool- �folk, security, of which the following is a copy : �" We, the jury, flnd for the plaintiflE against the defendants the sum of $11,212, with interest from April 14, 1860." �This verdict was entered on the declaration in the case, and on the same day N. H. Bass, the plaintiff's attorney, entered up a judgment on the declaration, according to the ��� �