« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
C. ANDERSON, Esq
ADELAIDE : E. S. WIGG & SON.
Black In mo
Harris v. Gleeson
129 Cromie, In re .
Healy, Duncan v.
218 Real Estate &c., Heil, Ross v. • .
113 Bank v.
41 Henderson, Hodgson v. · 9 Abbott, Robinson v. .. . Cunliffe ; Rock Freehold Land
-- v. Thorne . . 193 Adam v. Town of Brunswick
Coy. v. . .
33 | Herman, Gerlach v. . Adamson, Corbett v.
22 Dalley v. Harding - .
175 Hick, Trustees Executors &c. Allcu v. Hills - . Dalrymple v. Prince of Wales
Cug. v. . . . Anderson v. Carter
and Bonshaw United Coy. 168 | Higgins v. Board of Land and Andrews, Cawsey v. .
- - Angus, Regina v. - . 205
Hills, Allen v. . . . Attorney-General v. Blackwell
Hodgson v. Henderson · . 9 Australasia, Bank of, Exparte De Alba v. Freehold Invest
Howlett v. Shire of Tambo . 223 - v. Merment and Banking Coy, 136, 165
Huddart, Parker & Coy. Ltd., cantile Finance &c. Coy. • Deasy v. Wilson . .
Kilpatrick v. . . . 210
Hughen, Shire of Benalla v. .
Huon v. Dougharty . .
Huntly, Shire of, Èxparte ...
. . . De Leon ; Gerlach v. .
22 Bagley, Ex parte .
Irrigable Estates Coy., In re ·
poration Ltd., Stibbard v.
Irwin v. Poyntz Barthold, In will of
. Bedwell, Walshe v.
Jack, Dyson v..
James v. Town of Northcote · Bell, Setter v. - - 5, 157
Jenkins, Regina v.
178 Duggan v. Martin. Belton v. Belton ,
Jonas . Jonas · · · 201 Duncan v. Gibson .
120 Benalla, Shire of, v. Hughen 151
- v. Healy
218 Bennett v. Baker·
| Kampfhenteel, Hammon v. . 135 Gomm v.
Dunstan ; Shire of Borung v. . Birch & Coy. v. Patent Cork
95 | Kerang Times Publishing Coy., Dyson v. Jack ..
Inre, . . . . 163 Pavement Coy. . - 132, 209
Kilpatrick v. Huddart Parker
& Coy., Ltd. .
Kiudellan, Groom v. . . -- v. Poole
Equity Trustees &c., Coy. Ltd.; 155
Koebcke, Reg. v. Blackburn v. Miller
177 Rowe v. . . . Blackwell, Attorney-General v. 150 Errington v. Krone .
Krone, Errington v. . .
Essendon, Mayor of ; Cox v. .
Lamsey, In re . .
125 Boardman, Gleeson v. . . 153 Ltd., In re
Lange v. Bage . .
181 Borung, Shire of, v. Dunstan · 95
Langlands v. Langlands . 44 Brind, L. Stevenson and Sons Fisher ; Bundoora Park Estate
Lennie, Miller v. . .
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 · · ·
Looker, Lloyd v. . . .
Mackett v. Shields • .
226 Carter, Anderson v. 49
- v. McGinnis . Cawsey v. Andrews
Marwick v. Orton .
. Chaplin v. Chaplin
Matthews, In the will of
39 Charlton ; Cook v.
Mattingley y. The Queen
- - v. Herman Charsley, Re .
Mayberry v. McQuade.
McCrory v. Rivett
· · Clark, Sweetnam, v. .
McCulloch Carrying Coy. v.
- Harris v. Clements, In re . Gomm v. Bennett . .
Victorian Railways Coms. Cleverdon v. Towsend .
McDougall, Griffiths v. .
McGinnis, Martin v.
96 Companies Act 1890
McGregor v. Christie
. . 141 Cook v. Charlton . Griffiths v. McDougall
5+ McLaughlin v. Bank of Victoria
. Corbett v. Adamson
McLorinan, Ex parte
. Gunter's Case ·
McQuade, Mayberry v. . County of Bourke Permanent
Mercantile Bank of Australia, Building &c., Society ;
In re · · · · 89, 105 Shire of Moorabbin v. . 139 | Hammon v. Kampfhenteel . 135 Cox v. Mayor &c. of Essendon 7 Harding, Dalley v.. . . 175 v Lewis · · · · 93, 202
Mercantile Finance &c. Coy.,
Stokes v. Roughan
Milne, Re .
Regina v. Angus .
Before Hodges J.
Dyson V. JACK AND OTHERS.
29th June. IN RE THE COMPANIES ACT 1890, s. 145.
Partnership-Practice - Receiver—Leave of the Court 24d vune. 22nd June.
to sue. 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 8. / 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 eridence 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.
Mr. Isaacs in support. : All the English writers on HODGES, J.: Without reference to any particular
practice states that the application should be by application, I desire to state that, in all applications summous. 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 ap
the rules in respect of the winding up of trading complication, 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 ord
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.