116 Ga. 45 | Ga. | 1902
Arnold & Company sued Hill on a promissory note, in the city court of Elberton, and caused summons of garnishment, returnable to that court, to be served upon the Bank of Elherton. The garnishee answered that the sum of $127.38 had been “ deposited in the Bank of Elberton to the credit of ” Hill, and that this fund was subject to the order of the court. Hill filed a paper in which he set up that the sum mentioned in the answer of the garnishee was deposited in the bank by Mrs. R. C. Mattox, at the request of S. P. Mattox, and that he (Hill) did not request or consent “ that said money should be deposited in bank to his credit; ” that $100 of the money was earned by Hill as a laborer employed by S. P. Mattox to work on his farm; that this sum was for this reason claimed to be exempt from process of garnishment; but that no claim of exemption was made as to the $27.38, that not having been earned by Hill as a daily laborer. The case was submitted to the judge of the city court, presiding without a jury, upon the issue thus made, and he rendered a judgment finding the entire sum in the garnishee’s hands subject to the garnishment. Hill filed a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that this judgment was contrary to law and the evidence; and this motion having been overruled, he excepted.
We are of opinion that the evidence demanded a finding in favor of Hill, and that therefore the judge erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. It appears from the evidence that S. P. Mattox was due Hill $127.38, $100 of which was earned by him while working as a farm laborer for Mattox. When demand was made upon Mattox for the amount due, he gave Hill an order on Arnold & Company, the defendants in error, and when this order was presented to them they refused to pay it, on the ground that Hill was indebted to them in a sum greater than the amount of the order. When this was reported to Mattox, he gave Hill another order on
It is not contended that the wages of Hill as a farm laborer were not exempt from garnishment; but it is insisted that the judge could have found from the evidence that the money was deposited in the bank to the credit of Hill with his consent, and that, this being so, it became mingled with the general funds of the bank and stood in the position of an ordinary debt due by the bank to Hill. In other words, it is claimed that the transaction which took place between all these parties was equivalent to a payment of the money to Hill and a deposit of it by him in the bank to his credit. We do not think this conclusion is fairly warranted by the evidence. The real meaning of the transaction was that S. P. Mattox constituted his mother his agent to pay Hill the money, and that Mrs. Mattox constituted the cashier of the bank her agent to do this; and the evidence probably warranted the inference that Hill consented that the cashier should so act. There was never any payment of the money to Hill, and we do not think the evidence authorized a finding that he so regarded the transaction. The code provides that the wages of certain classes of laborers, “whether in the hands of their em
Judgment reversed.
