The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-01-28
GARNISHMENT ILLEGAL.
Atlanta Judge Renders Decision of
Far-Reachins Import-Laborer Can
not Waive Homestead Rights.

At Atlanta. Wednesday morning,
Judge J. H. Lumpkin, of the Fulton
comfy superior court handed down an
opinion thar is regarded in legal cir.
clcs as a stiff blow 10 money lenders
en- whom the county grand jury has
been wagine a crusade for several
months past.
The opinion is based on a case ap-
pealed from IN Atlanta justice court,
and in it Judge Lumpkin holds that
laborer has no legal right to waive his
exemption from the garnishment laws
Of the state of Georgia. The state law
provides that all day laborers shall be
exempt from garnishment, and under
decision Of Judge Lumpkin, no la
bo-er has the authority to sign an
agreement waving this exemption in
favor of money lender or any one
else.
The effect of the decision. lawyers
decare, will be far reaching. It means
the taking from money lenders the
power of subjecting the wages of a Ia
bo-er to punishment. It is under
stood that the practice is in vogue in
Atlanta of having laborcrs who borrow
money to sign an agreement assigning
their salary to the money lender, and
also waving their exemption from gar.
nishment, and the opinion of Judge
Lumpkin is a direct Knockout blow
to this method Of procedure.
The case on which the opinion is
founded was brought by one Charles
Colyer, a money lender, against Peter
Mills, in the court of Justice Of the
Peace Bloodworth. Mills was an en-
rlcyee of the Southern Railway Com
pany and IT. 1900 borrowed the sum
of s12 from Colyer, assigning his SAL
ary to Colyer and signing an agree
ment waving his exemption from gar
nishment on his salary for the months
of the years 1901 and 1902.
Mills, for some reason, failed to
make payment on the note, and suit
was instituted and summons Of gar
nishment taken out Mills claimed that
his wages were exempt from the gar
nishment as he was day iaborer.
and that his agreement to waive such
exemption was invalid. Colyer, on the
other hand. contended that the waiV'
er was perfectly legal and of force.
The case was tried before jury
in Judge Bloodworth's court and
verdict rendered in favor Of Colyer.
the waiver being sustained. The case
was then appealed, by certiorari, to
the superior court and was heard be-
fore Judge Lumpkin. After carefully
deliberating on the questions involved,
Judge Lumpl1;n, on Wednesday, hand
ed down his opinion, reversing the
verdict of the Justice court. It is ex-
pected that tn, case will be appealed
to the supreme court, and if it should
be, the decision of that tribunal will
be watched with much interest.
Judge Lumpkin held that the main
question at issue in the case is Wheth-
er a day laborer has the right to
waive his exemption from garnish-
ment. He held that such an exemp-
ton is contrary to the law OF the
state, and that it is against the NOR
ais and public policy of the state. He
cited numbers of authorities, both from
the decisions of the Georgia supreme
court and from the supreme courts OF
other states, to sustain mis- position
and to demonstrate that the waving
CT an exemption from garnishnent is
matter that affects the public policy
of the state.
The opinion deals fully with the
questions raised by the case and
forms a. lengthy typewriter document.