Swift Manufacturing Co. v. Henderson
Supreme Court of Georgia
Petition for certiorari. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee county. June 24, 1895. The petition alleged, that on March 15, 1895, Henderson sued Pittman in a justice’s court and on the same day had summons of garnishment issued to petitioner. Petitioner answered, that at the time of the service of the garnishment it was indebted to defendant $6.60 as daily wages, and since then had become indebted to him $13.65 as daily wages.
Read the full summary
Petition for certiorari. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee county. June 24, 1895. The petition alleged, that on March 15, 1895, Henderson sued Pittman in a justice’s court and on the same day had summons of garnishment issued to petitioner. Petitioner answered, that at the time of the service of the garnishment it was indebted to defendant $6.60 as daily wages, and since then had become indebted to him $13.65 as daily wages. Plaintiff traversed this answer, denying that the sums were due to defendant for daily wages. The case went by appeal to a jury in the justice’s court. It appeared that the…
1Opinion of the CourtSimmons, C. J.
1. The word “wages” means the compensation paid to a hired person for his services. This compensation to the laborer may be a specified sum for a given time of service, or a fixed sum for a specified work; that is, payment may be made by the job. The word “wages” does not imply that the compensation is to be determined solely upon the basis of time spent in service; it may be determined by the work done. Ford v. R. Co., 54 Iowa, 728. And see 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Wages, 513 note, and 515 note, Rood on Garnishment, §89; Seiders’ Appeal, 46 Penn. St. 57; Hamberger v. Marcus, 157 Penn. St.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ford v. St. L., K. & N. W. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. BarnumDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1908
- Johnson v. HicksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Thompson v. PassmoreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911