Cases from cite.case.law:

In PETTIT, III, 224 B.R. 834 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . The creditor garnished $ 703.19 owed to Houser. Id. . . . The court stated: The $703.19 was not to come to him as compensation for his personal labor and services . . .

In SCHLEIN SCHLEIN v. E. MILLS, Jr., 8 F.3d 745 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . In Patten, the defendant was due $703.19 for his services in delivering petroleum products to customers . . . discussing generally the purpose of exemption laws, the court explained its ruling as follows: The $703.19 . . .

In SCHLEIN SCHLEIN v. E. MILLS, Jr., 8 F.3d 745 (11th Cir. 1993)

. . . In Patten, the defendant was due $703.19 for his services in delivering petroleum products to customers . . . discussing generally the purpose of exemption laws, the court explained its ruling as follows: The $703.19 . . .

In PARKER, 147 B.R. 810 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . The garnishee had hired defendant on various occasions and owed him $703.19 for such deliveries. . . . that the exemption statute did not afford protection to the amount held by the garnishee, stated: The $703.19 . . .

In B. GLICKMAN, DDS, L. d b a MDFC EQUIPMENT LEASING CORP. v. B. GLICKMAN, E. D. D. S. P. A., 126 B.R. 124 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . The Supreme Court found the money, in the amount of $703.19, due the defendant from the garnishee was . . . The Supreme Court based its holding on the fact the $703.19 due the defendant from the garnishee was . . . The Supreme Court could not determine which part of the $703.19 was for the personal labor or services . . . Based on those facts, the Court found the $703.19 was not exempt from garnishment. . . .

In ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 116 F. Supp. 930 (D. Del. 1953)

. . . ) $5,000 for print- ($1.17 an ing briefs in the hr.) 3,Courts, in 2 of which G & U were appellees) $703.19 . . .