Tatum v. Zachry Bros.

12 S.E. 940, 86 Ga. 573, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 21
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 19, 1891·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Simmons, Justice.

Under the facts in this case, it was not error in the court below to refuse to sanction the writ of certiorari. The evidence shows that Tatum was the proprietor of a blacksmith-shop, and not the employee of any one. His customers were garnished ’on accounts which they owed him, and he claimed that the accounts were exempt from garnishment because he was a day-laborer. While he may have been a day-laborer, he received no [574]*574wages as an employee, but was his own master; and our code (§3554) only exempts the daily, weekly or monthly wages of journeymen-mechanics and day-laborers. A person who carries on an independent business for himself does not come under this section.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Tatum v. Zachry Bros., 12 S.E. 940, 86 Ga. 573, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 21 (Ga. 1891).

12 S.E. 940 (Tatum v. Zachry Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J. Austin Dillon Co. v. Edwards Shoe Stores Inc.
186 S.E. 470 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Thompson v. Passmore
72 S.E. 185 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
First Nat. Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. Barnum
160 F. 245 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1908)