McBride v Sandland (No 2) [1918] HCA 59

OF AUSTRALIA. 369

'Supreme Court attacked by him, and his appeal should be wholly H. C. or A.

' 1918. dismissed. Bit? { HENDERSON "Gavan Durry J.T agree. mati

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitor for the appellant, G. F. Michell. Solicitors for the respondent, Poole d& Moulden.

ie (WAN {im Firing Bek. ne E ao ar

'a (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

"McBRIDE ee ee 1 a) APPEL Ame PLarNtIFF,

AND

. 2 ' ; * 7 . . ReEsponpent. Derenpant, (No. 2.]

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

Practice—Supreme Court of State—Action—Stay of proceedings—Action founded on H.C, oF A.

_ judgment of High Couri—Proposed appeal to Privy Council—The Constitution 1918,

(63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 73, 74. au ApELaDE,

_ On an appeal to the High Court from a judgment in an action brought in Oct. 3

the Supreme Court of a State, the High Court made an order declaring that the _ Plaintiff was absolutely entitled to certain land which was then in the possession _ Barton, "of the defendant. The plaintiff having then brought an action of ejectment Gares Dat JJ. : 'in the Supreme Court, the defendant applied to that Court for a stay of the

action of ejectment, alleging that she had been advised the decision of the

'High Court was wrong in point of law and that she was taking steps to apply

.

H. C. oF A.

1918. Sw

McBripe v. SanpLAND

{No. 2].

HIGH COURT (1918,

for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council from that decision. The Supreme Court granted the stay on the grounds that without a stay the pro- posed appeal to the Privy Council might be nugatory, that the plaintiff could not be prejudiced, and that it was not suggested that the application to the Privy Council was not bond fide. On appeal to the High Court,

Held, that the grounds stated did not justify the granting of a stay, and that

it should be set aside.

Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Buchanan J.) set aside.