
    3415.
    Pruitt v. Pace.
    Decided December 19, 1911.
    Certiorari; from Floyd superior court — Judge Maddox.
    March 25, 1911.
    The work ou account of which a laborer’s lien was claimed was done in a furniture store, under an agreement that the plaintiff was to be paid $25 per month for his work. He testified: “I was manager of Mr. Pace’s store, and did all the work in connection with the running of the said store, including the keeping of the books, looking after his collections, and the selling of the merchandise. I also opened up the store in the morning, swept up the store, and, with the assistance of the liveryman hauling the furniture, loaded and unloaded it on the dray.”
    
      Eubanks & Mebane, for plaintiff.
    
      Ennis & Shaw, for defendant.
   Hill, C. J.

This was a foreclosure of a laborer’s lien claimed under section 2792 of the Civil Code of 1895, now section 3334 of the Civil Code of 1910; and, the evidence of the alleged “laborer” clearly showing that he was not a “laborer,” in the sense in which that word is used in the statute, there was no error in sustaining the certiorari and in entering final judgment against him. The case is fully controlled by the decision in Howell v. Atkinson, 3 Ga. App. 58 (59 S. E. 316). Judgment affirmed.  