M. A. Hightower & Co. v. Seaton

• Citation: 54 Ga. 108
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: M. A. Hightower & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. Wileiam F. SeaTon et al., defendants in error.

54 Ga. 108

M. A. Hightower & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. Wileiam F. SeaTon et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1875.)

Garnishment. Municipal corporations. Schools. Before Judge Hall. Spalding Superior Court. August Term, 1874. This case is reported in the decision. Hunt & Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

Nunnally & Johnston; Speer & Stewart; Peeples & Howell, for defendants.

WARNER, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs sued out a summons of garnishment, directed to Mangham, secretary and treasurer of the board of education of public schools in the city of Griffin, requiring him to appearat court and answer what he was indebted to Slaton, *the plaintiffs\' judgment debtor, or what property or effects he had in his hands belonging to him. On the hearing of the case in the superior court, the following facts were shown, as disclosed by the record: That Mangham, the garnishee, was secretary and treasurer of the board of education of the public schools in the city of Griffin, and in such official capacity he was indebted to Slaton, the defendant, the sum of $162 25, subject to reduction on final settlement, the same being $37 25, balance of salary for month of May, and $125 50 for month of June; that Slaton was employed by said board of education as principal teacher in the "Sam Baily Male Institute, " for the scholastic year of ten months, in 1874, at a salary of $125 per month, payable, by contract, at the end of each month; that the board had no right to discharge him except for cause; that Slaton had performed his service for the first term of the school for the year 1874, and the amount in the garnishee\'s hands admitted to be due, was for services already performed. Upon this statement of facts the court decided that the salary of the defendant, Slaton, was not subject to the process of garnishment. Whereupon the plaintiffs excepted. By the 3554th section of the Code, it is declared that all journeymen, mechanics, and day laborers, shall be exempt from the process and liabilities of garnishment on their daily, weekly, or monthly wages, whether in the hands of their employers or others; provided, that the wages of no person in the employment of another, shall be exempt from the process of garnishment when the consideration of the debt is for provisions for the use of the employee or his family, or when the consideration of said debt is for the board of himself or family. In giving a construction to ...