Wilson v. Ethridge

• Decision Date: 13 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 7909,,7909,
• Citation: 162 S.E. 707,174 Ga. 386
• Parties: WILSON. v. ETHRIDGE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

174 Ga. 386

162 S.E. 707

WILSON.

v.ETHRIDGE.

No. 7909,

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 13, 1932.

Adhered to after Rehearing March 2, 1932.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

HINES and GILBERT, J J., dissenting.

Certiorari from Court of Appeals.

Action by E. P. Wilson against L. C. Ethridge. Plaintiff recovered judgment, but judgment of the superior court overruling defendant's certiorari was reversed by the Court of Appeals, (41 Ga. App. 432, 153 S. E. 230), and plaintiff brings certiorari.

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.

R. R. Jackson and C. E. Moore, both of Atlanta, and Miller & Lowrey, L. U. Bloodworth, and E. W. Maynard, all of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

J. L. R. Boyd, of Atlanta, and E. F. Good-rum, of Macon, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BECK, P. J.

E. P. Wilson brought his action in the municipal court of Macon against L. C. Ethridge, alleging that the defendant has assigned to him $27.50 due defendant by the Central of Georgia Railway Company for wages or salary already earned by him in the employment of that company; that by virtue of said assignment the title to the money was in plaintiff; that defendant collected said sum from his employer and converted it to his own use by refusing to deliver it to plaintiff; and that defendant was liable to plaintiff in the sum of $27.50 because of said conversion. Defendant filed a demurrer, one ground of which raised the contention that the petition set out no cause of action at law, because the action is predicated upon a partial assignment of wages, which conveyed no title to the money to plaintiff. The demurrer was overruled, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant sued out a writ of certiorari, and the judge of the superior court refused to sanction the same. Thereupon the defendant sued out a writ of error to the Court of Appeals, which court reversed the judgment refusing sanction of certiorari. Wilson excepted, and brought the question to this court by the writ of certiorari.

The Court of Appeals based its rulings upon the following principles set forth in its decision: "A partial assignment of wages, not assented to by the debtor, will not support an action brought by the assignee against the assignor for a conversion of the wages assigned. The partial assignment of wages in this ease did not put such title to the wages assigned in the assignee as will support the action for conversion brought against the assignor by the assignee, and the judge of the superior court erred in refusing to sanction the assignor's certiorari from the municipal court of Macon." These...