Prather v. Pantone

54 S.E. 663, 125 Ga. 808, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 286
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 5, 1906·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Under the ruling made in the cases of Oliver v. Hardware Co., 98 Ga. 249, and Moultrie v. Crocker, 125 Ga. 82, the defendant, whose employment was that of building cabs and pilots for railway locomotives, was a “laborer” within the meaning of the Civil Code, §4732, exempting the wages of journeymen mechanics and day-laborers from process of garnishment. The fact that the laborer is paid according to the amount, and not the length of time of his work, does not preclude him from claiming the exemption. See Johnson v. Hicks, 120 Ga. 1002.

Jud,gment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

Prather v. Pantone, 54 S.E. 663, 125 Ga. 808, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 1906).

54 S.E. 663 (Prather v. Pantone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cohen v. Aldrich
62 S.E. 1015 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Howell v. Atkinson
59 S.E. 316 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)