Lamar v. Chisholm
Supreme Court of Georgia
Wages. Garnishment. Before Judge Harden. City Court of Savannah. . March Term, 1886. Lamar obtained a judgment against Besselieu and caused a summons of garnishment to be served on Chisholm, who answered that the defendant was a clerk or journeyman, and he owed him monthly wages which were not subject to garnishment. The answer was traversed.
Read the full summary
Wages. Garnishment. Before Judge Harden. City Court of Savannah. . March Term, 1886. Lamar obtained a judgment against Besselieu and caused a summons of garnishment to be served on Chisholm, who answered that the defendant was a clerk or journeyman, and he owed him monthly wages which were not subject to garnishment. The answer was traversed. On the trial, it appeared that Besselieu was employed as a clerk and bookkeeper by Chisholm, who was a merchant dealing in cotton, rice and naval stores. The court charged, in effect, that a clerk or bookkeeper is a day-laborer within the meaning of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Blandford, Justice.
The question here is, are the monthly wages of a clerk and bookkeeper subject to garnishment?
This is not an open question in this court. In the case of Smith vs. Johnston, 71 Ga. 748, this court held that the wages of a' clerk for a line of railroad, known as the Green Line, were not subject to garnishment. This decision was made on the authority of the cases reported in 46 Ga. 466; 54 Id. 108; 25 Id. 571.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Butler, McCarty & Co. v. John M. Clark & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1872
3Cited by6 opinions
- Oliver v. Macon Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Armour Packing Co. v. WynnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Howell v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Abrahams v. AndersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Briscoe v. Montgomery & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.