Cox v Journeaux [1934] HCA 72

Foll F. Foll ame FRocljoy ol, app Fol Comfort BY Grouchy, forty Commisic Kouboent bret Nee on unissioner — Boutewient Pin forRaibways" RP FR Se 'il (ae, ene ie ZALRT

RS: ic

282 HIGH COURT (1934. i [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] cox ' c . 4 f ' : f . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, AND JOURNEAUX AND OTHERS . 7 " . Responpents. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM DIXON J.

Constitutional Law—High Court—Original jurisdiction—Matters between " residents of different States" —Action by or against corporation—The Constitution (63 &

H.C. oF A. o : aay 64 Viet. c. 12), sec. 75 (1v.). an 'An action was commenced in the High Court by a resident of Queensland MELBOURNE, against (inter alice) two companies incorporated in and carrying on business Bey in. Victoria and managed and controlled there. On an application by tell yh companies for an order dismissing them from the action, the plaintiff contended — Dixon J. that the decision in Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Merzouawn, Soviely Lid. v. Howe, (1922) 31 C-L.R. 290, was wrong. 'The Court refused Oct. 15, 30. to reconsider that decision, and held, accordingly, that the companies were aoe. not " residents " of Victoria within the meaning of sec. 75 (tv.) of the Constitu- Geren Duty tion and the action therefore could not be maintained against them in the Meticman 33. High Court,

Decision of Dizon J. affirmed.

Appr from Dizon J.

Benjamin John Cox brought an action in the High Court against Herbert Fogelstrom Journeaux, Horace Frank Richardson, Thomas — Allan McKay, Arthur Vesey Walker, Cox Brothers (Australia) Ltd. and Cox Investments Ltd. (in liquidation). The plaintiff, Benjamin John Cox, was a resident of Queensland. The individual defendants were residents of Victoria and the two companies which were joined

ee

wail

62 CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA.