Section strictly construed.

- Where parties resort to summary remedies to recover their demands, they must follow the very letter of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380. Mabry v. Judkins, 66 Ga. 732 (1881); Ricks v. Redwine, 73 Ga. 273 (1884).

Section has no extraterritorial effect.

- O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-320,44-14-380, and44-14-382 which give to laborers a general lien upon the property of their employers for labor performed, have no extraterritorial effect, and give no lien arising out of a contract for labor, made in another state and executed by labor performed therein. Downs v. Bedford, 39 Ga. App. 155, 146 S.E. 514 (1929).

Trust estate is subject to lien under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380. Ricks v. Redwine, 73 Ga. 273 (1884).

Laborer may also sue at common law.

- Remedy given by O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-380,44-14-530, and44-14-550 is not exclusive, and does not deprive a laborer of a common-law right to sue upon a contract, but is merely cumulative of that right. Jennings v. Lanham, 19 Ga. App. 79, 90 S.E. 1038 (1916).

Foreclosure proceedings on laborer's lien not a bar to action on debt.

- Pendency of a foreclosure of a laborer's lien is not a bar to an action on account for the same debt, since, even where the lien is contested and the property replevied, no general judgment can be rendered in the foreclosure proceedings. In such a case, the lien foreclosure is not converted into a proceeding in personam by the filing of a replevy bond. The actions are entirely different and each involves a different kind of judgment. McKellar v. Childs, 95 Ga. App. 237, 97 S.E.2d 616 (1957).

Definition of laborer.

- Laborer under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380, is one who performs manual labor. If an employee is paid to perform headwork rather than handwork, that employee is not a laborer within that section. Cole v. McNeill, 99 Ga. 250, 25 S.E. 402 (1896).

"Laborer," under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380, is one who performs manual labor. Aronoff v. Woodard, 47 Ga. App. 725, 171 S.E. 404 (1933).

Laborers classified by work required under contract, not title.

- In determining whether an employee is a laborer within the meaning of the law providing for laborers' lien, that person is to be classified, not according to the arbitrary designation given to the calling, but with reference to the character of the services required of that person under the contract of employment. Bell v. J.B. Withers Cigar Co., 196 Ga. 48, 26 S.E.2d 260 (1943).

Laborer does not do work requiring business skill.

- Under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 laborers may file a lien on the property of their employers, but in order for an employee to come within the class entitled to such lien the employee's duties, in the main, must be duties not requiring business capacity, skill and discretion. Dantel Corp. v. Whidby, 98 Ga. App. 119, 105 S.E.2d 242 (1958).

Clerks, or persons doing general service, are not laborers within O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380. Richardson v. Langston & Crane, 68 Ga. 658 (1882). See also Hinton v. Goode & Crumbley, 73 Ga. 233 (1884); Ricks v. Redwine, 73 Ga. 273 (1884); Oliver v. Macon Hdwe. Co., 98 Ga. 249, 25 S.E. 403 (1896); Pruitt v. Pace, 10 Ga. App. 201, 72 S.E. 1098 (1911).

Mercantile clerk is not laborer.

- Clerk in a mercantile establishment is not a "laborer" even though the proper discharge of the clerk's duties may include the performance of some amount of manual labor. Meunier v. Beck & Gregg Hdwe. Co., 52 Ga. App. 30, 182 S.E. 58 (1935).

Clerical employees not entitled to either general or special laborer's liens.

- In a simple action by a clerical employee for an alleged unpaid salary, an employee is entitled to neither a general laborer's lien, nor a special laborer's lien, if it is shown that no manual labor is involved. United Bonded Whse., Inc. v. Jackson, 207 Ga. 627, 63 S.E.2d 666 (1951).

When employee's regular duties include actual manual labor, the employee may have lien under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 even though the employee is a clerk as well as a laborer. Oliver v. Boehm, Bendheim & Co., 63 Ga. 172 (1879); Rountree v. Brown, 22 Ga. App. 79, 95 S.E. 375 (1918).

When an employee's regular duties include actual manual labor, the employee may have a lien under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 although the employee performs other services for the employer which are not manual labor. Aronoff v. Woodard, 47 Ga. App. 725, 171 S.E. 404 (1933).

Cropper is a laborer, and, as such, may maintain a laborer's lien upon the crop as the property of the employer. Jennings v. Lanham, 19 Ga. App. 79, 90 S.E. 1038 (1916); Howard v. Franklin, 32 Ga. App. 737, 124 S.E. 554 (1924).

Waitress in a restaurant, who waits on the customers when they come into the restaurant to eat, takes their orders and serves them with their meals, and after they finish eating, cleans the table and takes the soiled dishes to the kitchen, and who also cooks some, sweeps the floors of the restaurant, changes the table linen, scrubs counters, washes mirrors, dusts, and unpacks canned goods, is a laborer within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380; even though the waitress frequently acts as cashier, purchases some of the groceries, and makes entries in the books of the business. Aronoff v. Woodard, 47 Ga. App. 725, 171 S.E. 404 (1933).

Mechanic may assert mechanic's or laborer's lien.

- A mechanic who personally performs manual labor upon property of the employer is not limited to a mechanic's lien under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-363, but may at the mechanic's option assert a laborer's lien under O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-380 or44-14-381. Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 233 (1875); Hilley v. Lunsford, 29 Ga. App. 398, 115 S.E. 667 (1923).

Working foreman limited to mechanic's lien.

- A working foreman, who in addition to duties as a supervisor, is expected to perform manual type labor personally may not be in the main, a laborer so as to be entitled to a lien under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 but may be a mechanic within the meaning of O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-360 and44-14-361. Dantel Corp. v. Whidby, 98 Ga. App. 119, 105 S.E.2d 242 (1958).

Laborer only has a lien for work which the laborer has done personally, and not by other persons hired by the laborer to do the work. Mabry v. Judkins, 66 Ga. 732 (1881).

Laborer entitled to earnings of spouse and minor child and may assert lien in the laborer's own name and for the laborer's own use for labor contracted for and performed by the spouse and child. Howard v. Franklin, 32 Ga. App. 737, 124 S.E. 554 (1924).

General laborer's lien on personalty takes precedence over ordinary mortgages, even those created prior to the contract for labor. Langston & Crane v. Anderson, 69 Ga. 65 (1882); Allred v. Haile, 84 Ga. 570, 10 S.E. 1095 (1890); Georgia Loan, Sav. & Banking Co. v. Dunlop, 108 Ga. 218, 33 S.E. 882 (1899); Mathews v. Fields, 12 Ga. App. 225, 77 S.E. 11 (1913).

Purchase-money mortgages and other liens, except as otherwise provided.

- Liens of laborers have priority over mortgages given to secure the payment of purchase money, and all other liens except those specially provided for and expressly declared by law to be superior. Bradley v. Cassels, 117 Ga. 517, 43 S.E. 857 (1903).

Lien in favor of laborers on the personalty of their employers takes precedence over mortgages, even mortgages given to secure the payment of the purchase money, and even to those created prior to the contract for labor, and all other liens except those specially provided for and specially declared by law to be superior. Aronoff v. Woodard, 47 Ga. App. 725, 171 S.E. 404 (1933).

Lien does not include fee for using laborer's property.

- Lien given to laborers under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 arises only for the amount due for the work done, and does not include hire for use of laborer's property. Cox v. Cagle & Sons, 112 Ga. 157, 37 S.E. 176 (1900).

Special lien of laborers given by O.C.G.A. § 44-14-380 attaches to their employers' property only. Farrar v. Joyce, 60 Ga. App. 675, 4 S.E.2d 708 (1939).

Amendment of lien which effectively changes party defendant.

- Laborer's special lien foreclosed against A, and levied on property alleged to be the property of A, to which property B files a claim, cannot be amended by alleging that B is the owner of the property, that the work for which the lien arose was done for B's benefit, and that B knowingly accepted such benefit, as such an amendment in effect substitutes B, of whom no demand for payment had been made within 12 months from the date the debt became due, for A as a party defendant, and this may not be done unless there is an equitable reason therefor. Farrar v. Joyce, 60 Ga. App. 675, 4 S.E.2d 708 (1939).

Procedure for enforcing lien.

- Laborer may enforce such lien on personal property by filing an affidavit in the proper court in the county of the residence of the employer or in the county where such property of the employer is located, setting forth the essential facts necessary to constitute such lien, whereupon an execution shall issue instantly, the same being final process, unless and until arrested or controverted by a proper counter affidavit. Harris v. Houston, 51 Ga. App. 116, 179 S.E. 645 (1935).

Employee has burden of showing contract required mostly manual labor.

- Burden is on employee to show that the general services by an oral contract of employment are to consist mainly of manual labor, and not merely that the services which the employee did perform consisted mainly of such labor. Bell v. J.B. Withers Cigar Co., 196 Ga. 48, 26 S.E.2d 260 (1943).

Unless foreclosure collaterally attacked by stranger.

- Rule that the burden of proving that one is a laborer lies upon the one asserting a laborer's lien does not apply where a judgment foreclosing a laborer's lien is collaterally attacked by a stranger. Sutton v. Bank of Oglethorpe, 33 Ga. App. 416, 126 S.E. 556 (1925).

Plaintiff in execution bears burden of showing possession by defendant.

- Possession by the lienholder is proper, and if there is no contradiction thereof by the claimant, the plaintiff in execution carries the burden of proof to show either title or possession of defendant in execution. Jones v. Major, 83 Ga. App. 78, 62 S.E.2d 729 (1950).

Cited in Lakewood Lumber & Supply Co. v. Hughes, 176 Ga. 239, 167 S.E. 518 (1933); Ford ex rel. S. Stevedoring Co. v. Lone Star Cement Co., 181 Ga. 212, 181 S.E. 773 (1935); Farmers Fertilizer Co. v. Carter, 83 Ga. App. 274, 63 S.E.2d 245 (1951); United States v. Ridley, 120 F. Supp. 530 (N.D. Ga. 1954); D.H. Overmyer Whse. Co. v. W.C. Caye & Co., 116 Ga. App. 128, 157 S.E.2d 68 (1967); Algernon Blair, Inc. v. Atlantic Steel Placing Co., 297 F. Supp. 1340 (N.D. Ga. 1969); Gibbs v. Griffin, 123 Ga. App. 385, 181 S.E.2d 285 (1971); Almand Constr. Co. v. Guye, 123 Ga. App. 630, 181 S.E.2d 907 (1971).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Liens, §§ 25-28, 75.

C.J.S.

- 56 C.J.S., Mechanics' Liens, § 98.

ALR.

- Priority as between landlord's lien on chattels and chattel mortgage, 37 A.L.R. 400; 52 A.L.R. 935.

Chattel mortgage on fruit crops growing or to be grown, 54 A.L.R. 1532.

Constitutionality of statute giving a lien for, or preferring claims of employees for, wages in case of insolvency of employer, 94 A.L.R. 1287.

Character of service contemplated by statutes giving a lien or preference, in event of insolvency, to servants, employees, laborers, etc., 111 A.L.R. 1453; 142 A.L.R. 362.

Sufficiency of description of subject of lien in farm laborer's claim of statutory lien, 116 A.L.R. 1009.

Right or interest subject to, and priority of, statutory lien for labor or material in developing property for oil and gas, 122 A.L.R. 1182.

Priority of lien of sales or consumers' tax, 136 A.L.R. 1015.

State's prerogative right of preference at common law, 167 A.L.R. 640.

Validity of statute making private property owner liable to contractor's laborers, materialmen, or subcontractors where owner fails to exact bond or employ other means of securing their payment, 59 A.L.R.2d 885.