Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Constitutionality.

- Former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21 was not unconstitutionally vague, nor did the statute violate equal protection of the laws for two reasons: (1) this was a limited waiver of state sovereign immunity from suit; and (2) the section was intended to encourage selfless response to emergencies on the part of governmental employees. Harp v. Winkles, 255 Ga. 42, 335 S.E.2d 292 (1985) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21).

"Employed while responding to an emergency."

- City police officer responding to an "officer down" call and under the direct supervision of the officer's immediate supervisor was "employed while responding to an emergency," pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21(a), such that the officer's wages were exempt from garnishment by a judgment creditor. Harp v. Winkles, 255 Ga. 42, 335 S.E.2d 292 (1985) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21).

Garnishment of funds other than those designated by section.

- Former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21 provided for limited waiver of sovereign immunity by permitting salaries of officials and employees of the state and the state's subdivisions to be made subject to garnishment. That section, however, was silent as to other funds in hands of the subdivision of the state. Therefore, such funds were still not subject to garnishment in Georgia. Grant v. Barge, 160 Ga. App. 488, 287 S.E.2d 393 (1981) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21).

Only Georgia statute authorizing garnishment of state funds permits garnishments to recover money due officials or employees of a municipal corporation or county of this state or of the state government, or any department or institution thereof, as salary for services performed for or on behalf of the municipal corporation or county of this state or the state, or any department or institution thereof. O.C.G.A. § 18-4-26(a) makes no mention of ordering garnishment of state funds paid to a state employee under an indemnification agreement for the purposes of securing a third party's judgment. Cassady v. Hall, 892 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2018).

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions decided under former Code 1933, § 46-306 as it read after passage of former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1 are included in the annotations under this Code section.

Subjecting National Guard to garnishment.

- National Guard is not subject to state garnishment unless garnishment is for child support or alimony. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-35 (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-306).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 62 et seq.

12 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Foreign Corporations, § 3.

ALR.

- Constitutionality of statute authorizing garnishment of salary or wages of public officials or employees, 22 A.L.R. 760; 123 A.L.R. 903.

Garnishment as suit within rule that state may not be sued without its consent, 114 A.L.R. 261.