In Intl. Indem. Co. v. Bakco Acceptance, 172 Ga. App. 28 (322 SE2d 78) (1984), the plaintiff's money was stolen, and it never ended up in anybody's hands who was a party to the action, let alone the defendants. Therefore, the defendants in that case had not been unjustly enriched. Id. at 32. See also Gibson, 268 Ga. at 363 (1) (claim not properly characterized as an action for money had and received where defendant received no money). In Eastside Carpet Mills v. Dodd, 144 Ga. App. 580 (241 SE2d 466) (1978), the court cited Cohen v. Garland, 119 Ga. App. 333 (2) (167 S.E.2d 599) (1969), for the proposition that "'(w)hen one sues for money had and received for his use, he must prove that the money was his own.'" Dodd, 144 Ga. App. at 581. Yet the court decided Dodd on the reasoning that the defendant was not unjustly enriched because it had received only what it was entitled to as a part of a separate business transaction. Id. And in Cohen, 119 Ga. App. at 335 (2), the plaintiff's claim was denied because he was not out any money at all; he had attempted to bring a claim for money had and received for funds that his father had paid to the defendant. Id. In J. C. Penney Co. v. West, 140 Ga. App. 110, 112 (230 SE2d 66) (1976), an issue was raised as to whether the plaintiff was the "true owner" of the funds that had unjustly enriched the defendant. But the issue only arose because it was unclear whether a related but different entity was the party who ex aequo et bono was entitled to some of the money. Id. at 112 (3). The question was whether the plaintiff was the real party in interest for all of the money; not whether the plaintiff had the right kind of proprietary interest in the money. Id. Finally, in Estes v. Thompson, 90 Ga. 698, 700 (17 SE 98) (1892), the plaintiff was not out any money that was related to money received by the defendant.