Case ID: ga_77/html/0306-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lamar vs. Chisholm.
    The wa8es a clerk an(l bookkeeper are not subject to garnishment.
    November 9, 1886.
    Wages. Garnishment. Before Judge Harden. City Court of Savannah. . March Term, 1886.
    Lamar obtained a judgment against Besselieu and caused a summons of garnishment to be served on Chisholm, who answered that the defendant was a clerk or journeyman, and he owed him monthly wages which were not subject to garnishment. The answer was traversed. On the trial, it appeared that Besselieu was employed as a clerk and bookkeeper by Chisholm, who was a merchant dealing in cotton, rice and naval stores. The court charged, in effect, that a clerk or bookkeeper is a day-laborer within the meaning of the statute exempting the wages of such persons from garnishment. The jury found in favor of the garnishee; the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was refused, and she excepted.
    Geo. W. Owens, by Charlton & Mackall, for plaintiff in error.
    Chisholm & Erwin, for defendants.
   Blandford, Justice.

The question here is, are the monthly wages of a clerk and bookkeeper subject to garnishment?

This is not an open question in this court. In the case of Smith vs. Johnston, 71 Ga. 748, this court held that the wages of a' clerk for a line of railroad, known as the Green Line, were not subject to garnishment. This decision was made on the authority of the cases reported in 46 Ga. 466; 54 Id. 108; 25 Id. 571.

Judgment affirmed.