Mabry v. Judkins

66 Ga. 732
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 66 Ga. 732 (Mabry v. Judkins) 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.

Bluebook
Mabry v. Judkins, 66 Ga. 732 (Ga. 1881).

Opinion

Crawford, Justice.

This case originated in a justice’s court, on a rule against the constable for the distribution of money in his hands raised from the sale of the property of John Mabry. There were several contestants for the fund, and among them the plaintiff in error, who claimed a priority over the rest upon the ground that her fi. fa. was founded upon a laborer’s lien, and therefore entitled to the money. The questions of law and fact were -submitted to the judge, who held that the affidavit of Georgia Mabry was fatally defective, because it was not alleged with sufficient certainty that her said lien was founded upon labor done and performed by herself.

The affidavit simply declares that John Mabry was indebted to her in the sum of $7-2.00 for nine months’ labor done and performed in making and gathering the crop of the year 1879.

This court has-uniformly held that, in all cases where parties resort to these summary remedies to recover their demands, that they must follow the very letter of the statute, or their proceedings will be utterly worthless. It [733]*733may be that the rigid rulings made have been stricter than was designed by the law-makers, but we do not propose to disturb them, and therefore hold, as was held in the 53d Ga., 39, “that a laboier only has a lien for work which he has done himself, and not by other persons hired by him to do the work.” And when this has been done, then, as was ruled in the 54th Ga., 571, the affidavit for the enforcement of a laborer’s lien must allege that the work was done by the plaintiff claiming such lien.”

In that case, as in this, it was alleged that the defendant was indebted for labor performed in the construction, etc.

There being nothing, therefore, to take this case out of the foregoing rulings, the judgment below must stand affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Wall v. Mills
190 S.E.2d 146 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Tallman v. Southern Motor Exchange, Inc.
103 S.E.2d 640 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Wooten v. Ford
166 S.E. 449 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Vandalsem v. Caldwell
125 S.E. 716 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Phillips v. Stapleton
97 S.E. 885 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
White v. Lawrence
66 S.E. 171 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Cox v. Fletcher & Adams
63 S.E. 61 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Faircloth v. Webb
53 S.E. 592 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Parks v. Simpson
52 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Vinson v. State
52 S.E. 79 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 Ga. 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mabry-v-judkins-ga-1881.