« PreviousContinue »
ADELAIDE: E. S. WIGG & SON.
IN THIS VOLUME.
218 Real Estate &c., Heil, Ross v.
113 Bank v. 41 | Henderson, Hodgson v.
9 Abbott, Robinson v.
193 Adam v. Town of Brunswick
33 | Herman, Gerlach v. Adamson, Corbett v.
22 17 Dalley v. Harding
175 Hick, Trustees Executors &c. Allcu v. Hills
52 Anderson v. Carter
and Bonshaw United Coy. Andrews, Cawsey v.
168 Higgins v. Board of Land and
158 Angus, Regina v. 205
Hills, Allen v.
Hodgson v. Henderson 133 De Alba v. Freehold Invest
Howlett v. Shire of Tambo
223 v. Mer
ment and Banking Coy, 136, 165 Huddart, Parker & Coy. Ltd., cantile Finance &c. Coy. 57 Deasy v. Wilson
210 Australian Freehold Land &c. De Beer Monte and Coy., Re- 160
Hugher), Shire of Benalla v. 151 Coy. v. Shire of Goulburn 225 Deegan v. Remington
33 De Faro; Trustees Executors
Huntly, Shire of, #xparte
9 &c., Coy. v.
21 Bage, Lange v.
22 Bagley, Ex parte
89, 105 Dominion Banking &c., CorBaker, Bennett v.
Irrigable Estates Coy., In re · 116 149 poration Ltd., Stibbard v. 222 Irwin v. Poyntz
18 Barthold, In will of 157
33 Bartlett v. Bartlett
Dougharty, Huon v. 6
Jack, Dyson v.
1 Beasley, Tafls v.
James v. Town of Northcote
185 Bell, Setter v.
178 Belton v. Belton 142
Jonas r. Jonas
201 Benalla, Shire of, v. Hughen 151
218 Bennett v. Baker
Lunn y, Roberts
217 Kampfhenteel, Hammon v.
135 223 Dunstan ; Shire of Borung r. 95 Kerang Times Publishing Coy., Birch & Coy. v. Patent Cork Pavement Coy.
163 Black In re 151
Kilpatrick v. Huddart Parker
Kiudellan, Groom v.
20 Blackburn v. Miller
27 Blackwell, Attorney-General v. 150 Errington v. Krone
Krone, Errington v. Board of Land and Works,
Essendon, Mayor of ; Cox v.
7 Higgins v. 158 Evening Post Newspaper Coy.,
Lamsey, In re
125 Boardman, Gleeson v. 153 Ltd., In re
66 Lange v. Bage
181 Borung, Shire of, v. Dunstan 95 Field, Re
162 | Langlands v. Langlands
44 Brind, L. Stevenson and Sons
208 Ltd. v. 166 Coy. v. 107 Lennox, In the will of
19 Bristow v. The Queen 147, 171 Fitts v, Fitts
83 Lewis, Mercantile Bank v. 93, 202 Brunswick, Town of, Adam v. 66
Lloyd v. Looker
97 Bundoora Park Estate Coy. v.
Looker, Lloyd v.
Foster Brewing Coy. Ltd. v.
Mackett v. Shields
226 Carter, Anderson v. 49
96 Cawsey v. Andrews 3
Marwick v. Orton
48 Chaplin v. Chaplin
Gay, Sawtell v.
39 Charlton ; Cook v.
Mattingley v. The Queen 143, 171 Charsley, Re 130
120 Gibson, Duncan v.
Mayberry v. McQuade
40 Christie, McGregor v.
174 Clark, Sweetnam, v.
McCulloch Carrying Coy. v.
129 Clements, In re
Victorian Railways Coms.
203 Cleverdon v. Towsend
McDougall, Griffiths v. Cohen, In re
29 106 Goulburn, Shire of, Australian
McGinnis, Martin v.
96 Companies Act 1890
Freehold Land &c. Co. v.
141 Cook v. Charlton
McLaughlin v. Bank of Victoria 29
167 Cotter v. Moran 157 Gunter's Case
51 Corbett v. Adamson
40 County of Bourke Permanent
Mercantile Bank of Australia, Building &c., Society ;
89, 105 Shire of Moorabbin v. 139 Hammon v. Kampfhentec!
135 Cox v. Mayor &c. of Essendon 7 Harding, Dalley v.
209 10 34
37 71, 85
59 223 148 124 193 133 69
Queenscliff, Borough of, v.
Stiles, In re v. Weigall
140 Stoffers, Wootton v. Mercantile Finance &c. Coy.,
Stokes v. Roughan Bank of Australasia v. 57
Sweetnam v. Clark -
Syme, Speight v.
Synnot v. Synnot Milne, Re 68 Regina v. Angus
Taffs v. Beesley
Tambo, Shire of, Howlett v.
Taylor v. Taylor Moorabbin, Shire of, Re
Reid and Sionot, In re
Thompson, Michael v.
Thorne, Henderson v.
Townsend, Noonan v. Moran, Cotter v.
Rivett, McCrory v. 157
Towsend Cleverdon v. Mulholland v. Smith - 130, 161 Roberts, Craig v.
Trustees Executors &c. Coy.
v. De Faro Robinson v. Abbott
101 Nolan v. Nolan
Borough of Queens-
140 Northcote, Town of, James v. 185 Rock Freehold Land Coy. v.
v. Sparling Cunliffe
33 O'Hea v. Black
Ross, In the Will of
160 119 Orton, Marwick v..
113 | Union Trustee Coy., Young v. v. Heil.
14 Osboldstone, Steele v.
194 Victoria, Bank of, McLaughlin
Bank of, v. Smith Pearson, In re
Sawtell v. Gay 115
48 Victorian Railways CommisPermanent Savings Building Schomann,'Shamrock Brewing
sioners, McCulloch Carry. &c. Coy., v.
5 Society of Port Mel.
ing v. bourne; Town of Port
Setter v. Bell .
5, 157 Melbourne, v.
Shamrock Brewing &c., Coy. v. 64
Schomann Perpetual Executors &c., Asso
5 Walshe v. Redwell ciation ; Duff y. Sheppard, Gottor v.
151 / Webb v. Smith Pitson, In re
38 Weigall, Mercantile Bank r.
Sinnot and Reid, In re Poole, Black v. 155
6 | Welch, Re Port Melbourne, Town of, v.
Smith, Bank of Victoria v.
92 Whittle, In re
Mulholland v. Permanent Savings Build.
- 130, 161 | Wilson, Deasy v. Webb v.
186 ing Society of Port Mel
v. Howard Smith and bourne
and Sons Ltd., Wilson v.
Woolf, In re
&c., Coy. v.
34 | Wootton v. Stoffers 28 Prince of Wales and Bonshaw
Speight v. Syme United Coy.; Dalrymple v.
Spillane, In re
152 Young v. Union Trustee
Stevenson & Sons Ltd. v. Brind 166 Coy.
35 186 192
95 180 37
188 134 10
29th June. IN RE THE COMPANIES ACT 1890, s. 145.
Partnership-Practice — Receiver—Leave of the Court
22nd June. Company-Companies Act 1890 (No. 1074) 8. 145- Semble, per Hodges, J., that an application to the Court
Compromise-Sanction of Court to — Practice by the receiver of a firm for leave to commence an Costs.
action, may be made exparte. Where a company is being wound up by or subject to
Application on behalf of the receiver of the defendthe supervision of the Court, an application under s.
ants Andrew Jack & Coy., for leave to commence and 145 of the Companies Act 1890, must be supported prosecute action against certain debtors of the defendby evidence as to the amount (if any) of costs agreed ant firm. The application was made exparte and was to be paid by the contributory. Such costs should
supported by affidavit. in the first instance be paid to the liquidator. HODGES, J. : Without reference to any particular practice states that the application sbould be by
Mr. Isaacs in support. : All the English writers on application, I desire to state that, in all applications
summons. If this practice be correct it appears hard on behalf of liquidators of companies to sanction to see who ought to be served with the summons. agreements of compromise between the liquidator and any contributory, I shall require an affidavit stating
His Honor said : I can see the difficulty suggested specifically the amount, if any, which the contributory as to determining what persons should be serred with has agreed to pay towards the costs of the application. the summons, and I do not see the necessity for servIf no sum has been agreed so to be paid I shall require ing anyone. If a summons were held to be necessary that to be stated also. Where an agreement has been the practice would be very similar to that provided by made as to payment of or towards the costs of the
the rules in respect of the winding up of trading com
application, I shall require the costs agreed upon to be panies, where all applications in Chambers are directed paid in the first instance to the liquidator so as to to be made on summons, the usual effect of this being make them moneys which come under his control. I that liquidators have frequently to go to the expense have several applications of this nature before me
of issuing a summons which is served on no one. I which I am holding back until I have been furnished shall make the order on this exparte application ; and with the above information, but I wish to be under- if anyone thinks he is entitled to object, of course, he stood to make the above remarks generally, and with may do so. Certify for counsel. out reference to any particular application.
Solicitors for the applicant, Blake & Riggall.