Ensel v. Adler
35 S.E. 334, 110 Ga. 326, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 427
Opinion
Applying the rule laid down in the case of Oliver v. Macon Hardware Company, 98 Ga. 249, to the facts disclosed by the present record, the plaintiff in error, who was a general salesman in a clothing establishment, was not a laborer whose wages were exempt from the process of garnishment; and accordingly the verdict against him upon this point was right, and the superior court did not err in Refusing to disturb it. Hunter v. Morgan, 108 Ga. 409; Boynton v, Pelham, 108 Ga. 794.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ensel v. Adler, 35 S.E. 334, 110 Ga. 326, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 427 (Ga. 1900).
35 S.E. 334 (Ensel v. Adler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mathewson v. Shewmake
84 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Howell v. Atkinson
59 S.E. 316 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Kline v. Russell
39 S.E. 477 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)