Moore v. Hendry

36 S.E. 921, 111 Ga. 863, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 847
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 8, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Little, J.

1. The record disclosing that the sum due by the garnishee to-the defendant was not for daily, weekly, or.monthly “wages,” but for labor performed under a contract by the terms of which his compensation’was measured by the amount of work done, the jury correctly found that the sum thus due was not exempt from the process of garnishment; and this is so although it appeared that payments were made to the defendant at the .end of each period of four weeks.

2. It follows that the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Moore v. Hendry, 36 S.E. 921, 111 Ga. 863, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 847 (Ga. 1900).

36 S.E. 921 (Moore v. Hendry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Etowah Monument Co. v. Portal Naval Stores Co.
149 S.E. 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Thompson v. Passmore
72 S.E. 185 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Moultrie v. Crocker
54 S.E. 197 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Johnson v. Hicks
48 S.E. 383 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)