Cox v. White

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cox v. White

117 S.E. 768, 30 Ga. App. 263, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 383

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1923

Docket14344

StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 768 (Cox v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. White, 117 S.E. 768, 30 Ga. App. 263, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyles, C. J.

1. Where a landlord furnishes to his cropper everything to make the crop, except labor (which is furnished by the cropper, his family, and others employed by him), the net amount due the cropper after full settlement with the landlord is in the nature of wages paid to day laborers (Thompson v. Passmore, 9 Ga. App. 771, 72 S. E. 185; McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215, 12 S. E. 359); and, under the provisions of section 5298 of the Civil Code of 1910, as amended by act of August 14, 1914 (Ga. L. 1914, p. 62), only fifty per cent, of the excess of $1.25 per day of all wages of a laborer is subject to garnishment.

2. Since the burden of proving that the garnishee was indebted was on the garnishing creditor, who traversed the answer of the garnishee (Rockmart Bank v. (Nix, 14 Ga. App. 238, 239, 80 S. E. 673), it was incumbent upon the plaintiff in the instant case, under the principle announced in the preceding paragraph, to affirmatively show, (1) that there had been a full settlement between the landlord and the cropper, and (2) that after allowing the cropper $1.25 per day for himself and his laborers, there remained in the hands of the landlord— the garnishee — a balance due the cropper. The plaintiff failed to carry this burden, and therefore the verdict in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. .Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beoyles, C. J.

1. Where a landlord furnishes to his cropper everything to make the crop, except labor (which is furnished by the cropper, his family, and others employed by him), the net amount due the cropper after full settlement with the landlord is in the nature of wages paid to day laborers (Thompson v. Passmore, 9 Ga. App. 771, 72 S. E. 185; McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215, 12 S. E. 359); and, under the provisions of section 5298 of the Civil Code of 1910, as amended by act of August 14, 1914 (Ga. L. 1914, p. 62), only fifty per cent, of the excess of $1.25 per day of all wages of a laborer is subject to garnishment.

2. Since the burden of proving that the garnishee was indebted was on the garnishing creditor, who traversed the answer of the garnishee (Rockmart Bank v. (Nix, 14 Ga. App. 238, 239, 80 S. E. 673), it was incumbent upon the plaintiff in the instant case, under the principle announced in the preceding paragraph, to affirmatively show, (1) that there had been a full settlement between the landlord and the cropper, and (2) that after allowing the cropper $1.25 per day for himself and his laborers, there remained in the hands of the landlord— the garnishee — a balance due the cropper. The plaintiff failed to carry this burden, and therefore the verdict in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. .Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E. 768, 30 Ga. App. 263, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-white-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack