Williams v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1905] HCA 6

OF AUSTRALIA. 385

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

APPELLANT;

AND

AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL iim «

SOCIETY DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Prutie—Appeal Rules—Change of parties—No provision in rules—Order that H. C.o¥ A. procedings be carried on in name of new party—Rules of the High Court 1903, 1905. PLL, Order XI, rv. 4. — Sypvey,

Where it became necessary, after the institution of an appeal to the High March

Court, to have the name of a new party substituted for that of the appellant, there being no provision for such a case in the Appeal Rules, the High Court Grimith c.3., ade an order analogous to that prescribed by r. 4 of Order XI., Pt. I. of the ggnonand Rules of the High Court 1903, that the appeal should be car thenew party, as appellant, and the original respondent, and that the proceed- ings should be amended accordingly.

xd on between

'Votton for leave to continue an appeal in the name of a new party, The appellant as executor brought an action in the Supreme Gonrt of New South Wales, against the respondent Society, upon tetain policies of assurance upon the testator's life. While the on was pending, the respondent obtained an order froma Judge threting that a commission should issue for the examination of a ness in New Zealand. A motion by the appellant to have the imer setaside by the Full Court was refused (1). From the order tithe Full Court the present appeal, by leave of the High Court,

(1) 21 N.8.W. W.N., 249.

H. 0. oF A. 1905. —

Wrnrtams

AUSTRALIAN Murvat PRovipest Soorery,

HIGH COURT

was instituted. While the appeal was pending, the widow of testator, by virtue of a power conferred upon her by a codiei} the will, elected to become executrix in place of the Appellant, wi had up to that timeacted asexecutor. It therefore became neon sary for her to become a party to the appeal, in place of the f executor. A suggestion of the change in the executorship entered in the Supreme Court.