Tatum v. Zachry Bros.
This text of 12 S.E. 940 (Tatum v. Zachry Bros.) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 S.E. 940, 86 Ga. 573, 1891 Ga. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-zachry-bros-ga-1891.