Swift Mfg. Co. v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 08 June 1896
• Citation: 25 S.E. 27,99 Ga. 136
• Parties: SWIFT MANUF'G CO. v. HENDERSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

25 S.E. 27

99 Ga. 136

SWIFT MANUF'G CO. v. HENDERSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 8, 1896

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The word "wages" means the compensation paid to a hired person for his services. This compensation to the laborer may be a specified sum for a given time of service, or a fixed sum for a specified work; that is, payment may be made by the job. The word "wages" does not imply that the compensation is to be determined solely upon the basis of time spent in service. It may be determined by the work done. Ford v. Railroad Co., 7 N.W. 126, 54 Iowa 728. And see 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, "Wages," 513, note; Id. 515, note; Rood, Garnishment, § 89; Seiders' Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 57; Hamberger v. Marcus, 27 A 681, 157 Pa. St. 136, 137.

2. Accordingly, where the compensation of an ordinary laborer in a factory is so many cents per "hank" for every hank he makes, payable biweekly, this compensation is "wages," and as such exempt from the process of garnishment.

3. The judge erred in refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari.

Error from superior court; Muscogee county; W. B. Butt, Judge.

Action in justice court by M. L. Henderson against one Pittman, in which the Swift Manufacturing Company was summoned as garnishee. There was a judgment against the garnishee, who petitioned to the superior court for a writ of certiorari which was refused, and the garnishee brings error. Reversed.

The following is the official report:

The Swift Manufacturing Company presented to the judge of the superior court their petition for certiorari, alleging: On March 15, 1895, Henderson sued Pittman in the justice's court, and on the same day had summons of garnishment issued to petitioner. Petitioner answered that, at the time of the service of the garnishment, they were indebted to defendant $6.60 as daily wages, and since then had become indebted to him $13.65, also as daily wages, which indebtedness, being for daily wages, is exempted by law from the process of garnishment. Plaintiffs traversed this answer, denying that the sums were due to defendant for daily wages. The case went by appeal to a jury in the justice's court. From the evidence before the jury the following appeared: The summons was served on the garnishee March 15, 1895. Pittman was then working as a day laborer for the garnishee, and receiving 85 cents a day. On March 18th the contract the garnishee had with Pittman was changed, and it paid him 11 cents a hank and required him to make not less than eight hanks a day, for which he was to receive 88 cents, and for all over and above the eight hanks he made he was to be paid 11...