Adcock v. Smith

• Decision Date: 03 October 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 91
• Parties: ADCOCK et al. v. SMITH.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

37 S.W. 91

ADCOCK et al. v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 3, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Knox county; J. W. Sneed, Judge.

Garnishment proceeding by O. P. & J. S. Adcock against William Smith, defendant, and the Knoxville Iron Company, garnishee. From a judgment holding the money sought to be reached exempt from garnishment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

S. G. Hieskell, for appellants. J. F. J. Lewis and W. S. Frost, for appellee.

WILKES, J.

This is a garnishment proceeding to reach what are claimed as exempt wages under the provisions of Mill. & V. Code, § 2931. This section, in effect, exempts from execution, seizure, or attachment $30 of the wages of every mechanic or laboring man; and the only question is, does the defendant, William Smith, bring himself within the terms of this exemption? The cause was commenced before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the circuit court; and that court held that the amount due defendant was due him as the wages of a laboring man, and not the subject of garnishment, and plaintiffs have appealed and assign error.

The Knoxville Iron Company, which was garnished in the case, answered. The testimony of the secretary and treasurer was also taken, and is substantially the same as the answer, and is to the effect that Smith was in the employment of the company, and that the company owed him $10, of which $8.40 was due July 20, 1895, and $1.55 due August 20, 1895; that the indebtedness was for puddling iron at the rate of $3 per ton; that the contract with Smith was to pay him for the tons or parts of tons he puddled; and that the company does not hire puddlers by the day or month, but by the ton alone. Smith testified: That he worked for the iron company, boiling iron, and was paid $3 per ton. That he was required to go to work at a certain hour, and quit at a certain hour, and that unless he complied with the hours he would be discharged. He adds, "I am a mechanic and laboring man, and work for wages." That the company paid him $3 per ton for the iron he boiled, and that he worked upon no other terms. This is all the evidence in the case, and presents the facts upon which the decision must be based. Briefs have been filed on both sides, but no authority has been cited. It is insisted on the one hand that Smith simply has a contract to puddle iron, and that he stands in the same attitude as would a man who contracts to build a house for $500, or any other amount. On the other hand, attention is called to the fact that Smith received his pay monthly, on the 20th of each month; that he was compelled to begin and quit work at a certain hour. And these features, it is insisted, make him a laborer for wages. We have no decision of this court directly adjudicating the question involved. We have made search among the authorities for the holdings in other states. "Wages" are defined to be...