Legal Opinion

Tatum v. Zachry Bros.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 19, 1891PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Garnishment. Laborers. Before Judge Harris. Troup county. At chambers, February 12, 1890. Reported in the decision.

1Opinion of the Court

Simmons, Justice.

Under the facts in this case, it was not error in the court below to refuse to sanction the writ of certiorari. The evidence shows that Tatum was the proprietor of a blacksmith-shop, and not the employee of any one. His customers were garnished ’on accounts which they owed him, and he claimed that the accounts were exempt from garnishment because he was a day-laborer. While he may have been a day-laborer, he received no *574wages as an employee, but was his own master; and our code (§3554) only exempts the daily, weekly or monthly wages of journeymen-mechanics and day-laborers. A…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. First Nat. Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. BarnumDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1908
  2. J. Austin Dillon Co. v. Edwards Shoe Stores Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  3. Thompson v. PassmoreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API