Hall v. Armour Packing Co.
This text of 29 S.E. 139 (Hall v. Armour Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. A garnishment served upon an employer is not effectual to reach the salary of an employee, if the former was not indebted to the latter at the time the garnishment was served and did not become indebted to him previously to the time of making answer; and this is true although the employer even after service paid the employee his salary in [587]*587advance for the purpose of preventing the same from being-reached by the garnishment.
2. The charge in the present case with respect to what constituted a laborer was substantially in accord with the law as laid down by this court in the case of Oliver v. Macon Hardware Co., 98 Ga. 249, and the verdict of the jury was warranted by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 S.E. 139, 102 Ga. 586, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-armour-packing-co-ga-1897.