This is an appeal from the dismissal of a traverse to an answer of a garnishee. The First National Bank of Atlanta instituted a garnishment, directing a summons on May 4, 1983, to Thomson McKinnon Securities, which named Brock Sinkler, a former employee of Thomson McKinnon, as the defendant judgment debtor. Plaintiff’s plead *669 ings were verified. The garnishee’s answer was not verified but substantially followed the format set forth in OCGA § 18-4-66 (4). The answer notified plaintiff that nothing was owed the defendant and that he was not due any wages by garnishee. The garnishee added the explanation that they had terminated defendant’s employment on April 12, 1983 and were currently holding $8,249.64 from defendant’s commissions which defendant owed to a customer of the garnishee. Those funds were to be distributed to the customer in payment of a debt which arose prior to the service of the summons of garnishment upon the garnishee.
Plaintiff traversed garnishee’s answer. When the traverse was heard, First National moved to strike the garnishee’s answer as legally insufficient, for judgment on the pleadings as to liability, and for judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. The trial court denied all motions and dismissed the traverse. First National appeals. Held:
1. First National contends the trial court erred in finding that the garnishee’s answer complied with the provisions of OCGA § 18-4-66 (4) and was legally sufficient. Garnishment law in Georgia underwent a drastic change in 1976 following .the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in North Ga. Finishing v. Di-Chem,
The present action is based on a prior judgment. Under OCGA § 18-4-61, a post-judgment garnishment petition must be verified by affidavit for summons of garnishment to issue. Accordingly, the plaintiff verified his affidavit. The garnishee did not verify his answer. The Code also provides that “[i]n all cases where the plaintiff files a pleading with an affidavit attached to the effect that the facts stated in the pleading are true to the best of his knowledge and belief, the defendant shall in like manner verify any answer.” OCGA § 9-10-111. However, there are two other statutes relating to this issue of whether or not a garnishee must verify his answer. OCGA § 9-11-11 provides, in part: “(b) Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.”
*670
Secondly, OCGA § 18-4-66 states: “For the purpose of Articles 1 through 5 of this chapter, the following forms are declared to be sufficient for garnishment after judgment, provided that nothing in this Code section shall be construed to require the use of particular forms in any proceeding under this article.” The fourth form sets forth a legally sufficient answer form for a garnishee. It does not require verification. Construing all articles in pari materia, although we have a general statute which requires a “defendant” to verify his answer when the “plaintiff” verifies his petition, there is a specific statute dealing with legally sufficient forms for a “plaintiff” and “garnishee.” For purposes of interpretation, and to the extent of any repugnancy between them, the specific statute will prevail over the general statute, absent any indication of a contrary legislative intent. See generally 82 CJS 839, Statutes, § 369. Further, OCGA § 18-4-66 was the last enacted statute, and “it is well settled in this jurisdiction that all statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it . . .”
Buice v. Dixon,
2. Because we have found no error in the failure of the garnishee to verify his answer, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to strike the garnishee’s answer.
3. In like manner, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because of the lack of verification.
4. It was not error for the trial court to overrule an objection by the plaintiff to the testimony for the garnishee in support of its answer. Such testimony was admissible on the issue formed by the plaintiff’s traverse to the garnishee’s answer.
5. The garnishee’s answer denied that it was indebted to the defendant judgment creditor. It admitted it had $8,249.64 which had been withheld from defendant’s commissions but claimed that those funds were being held to distribute to a customer in payment of a debt which arose from a transaction between the defendant and one of garnishee’s clients. That stock transaction had not been completed because it was unauthorized and the garnishee had instructed defendant not to complete the stock acquisition. However, the client as
*671
sumed that the defendant had made the stock purchase and sold the stock. Because the client was unable to deliver the stock he had sold he brought an action against the garnishee for lost profit of more than $15,000.00. In accordance with the defendant’s contract with the garnishee, earned commissions in the amount of $8,249.64 were withheld to be used in payment of any judgment obtained by the client against garnishee. Under the defendant’s contract with garnishee, all losses resulting from errors by an account executive would be charged to the commission account of the executive. Hence, defendant had no right to obtain the withheld commissions from the garnishee. “The case law is well established that under the prior garnishment statute [cit.] the right of setoff by the garnishee existed [against the defendant debtor]. [Cits.] Since the provisions under the present statute [cit.] as to what is subject to garnishment are substantially the same, we think the former case law is still valid. Consequently, the right to setoff is still an available remedy specifically given by law, whether the defendant debtor is an employee of the garnishee or bears some other relation to him. [Cit.] Thus, ‘[t]he true rule is that a garnishee, if the debtor be indebted to him, has a lien on funds coming into his hands, or future indebtedness to the debtor on his part, superior to that of the plaintiff in garnishment. He is entitled to pay himself before he is required to collect for the benefit of others . . .’”
Fla. First Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank,
Judgment affirmed.