Ware & Owens v. Laird
Supreme Court of Georgia
Garnishment. Before1" Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. March term, 1893. Ware & Owens sued Laird in a justice’s court, and ■caused process of -garnishment to issue and be served on the E. T., V. & G. R. R. Co. Laird interposed an affidavit and bond, the affidavit alleging: “that he is a laborer for wages, employed by the E. T., C. & Ga.
Read the full summary
Garnishment. Before1" Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. March term, 1893. Ware & Owens sued Laird in a justice’s court, and ■caused process of -garnishment to issue and be served on the E. T., V. & G. R. R. Co. Laird interposed an affidavit and bond, the affidavit alleging: “that he is a laborer for wages, employed by the E. T., C. & Ga. R. R.; that he has been so employed by said road as a day-laborer for wages at the sum of $2.25-per day since the 1st day of August, 1890; th£$ said plaintiffs Ware & ■Owens have heretofore, to wit on the 13th day of January, 1891, caused…
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
1. Laird, the debtor, whose money was garnished in the hands of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia R. R. Co., his debtor, made an affidavit claiming the fund as exempt because consisting of his wages as a day-laborer, and at the same time gave bond to dissolve the garnishment. These two documents are set forth in the reporter’s statement. On a comparison of the bond with the terms of the act of October 15th, 1885, it will be seen that there is some want of strict compliance with the provision of that act. We think, however, that the bond was sufficient to operate…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Leake v. TynerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Wall v. MountSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905