High Court of Australia
190 HIGH COURT iit
H.C. oF A. leave to appeal." Applying these words here, the appli 1904. should not be granted, if the judgment was plainly right or Jouaxses tended with sufficient doubt to justify us in granting special leay
ur Morea # appeal in a ease below the appealable amount. 'The point
Lire Assor- law decided is that the words "within twelve months after
"Tress, " default" are to have their natural meaning, and that does seem to us to be attended with serious doubt. That being only question in the ease of sufficient importance to justify
leave, leave must be refused,
Leave refused. —
Solicitor for applicant, #. Pugh, by R. P. Hickson.
CAW,
(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)
WILSON AppeLtast;
axp
CARMICHAEL RESPONDENT.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF 4 NEW SOUTH WALES.
H.C. oF A. Partuership—Suit for win
nding up—Stay of common law action—Appeal—Question 1904. ¢ fact—Power of High Court to make such order aa the Supreme Court ead ~ have made—Variation of decree by consent, Syoxey, Atk sill Dai6, Tnan appeal from the decision of a Judge of first instance on a questa
21, 2,
turns on the credibility of witnesses, who have beet
ae subjected to cross-examination, and the Judge, having had the opportunity CeriC2, Seeing and hearing the witnesses, has deliberately come to a conclusion as t# Oconee, which side
has given the correct version, the Court of Appeal will not disturb
'unless itis clearly satisfied that the finding was wrong. 7
his finding
Where both parties to an ay
ppeal consent, the High Court may Aecree appealed from so
to give the appellant part of the relief which be
OF AUSTRALIA.
seks, and make such an order as would, if the parties had consented, have 'aa ade by the Court whose judgment is appealed from,
'The appellant and respondent entered into a partnership for the purpose of cqning certain agencies and flonting @ company to take them over and faryonthe businesses. During the existence of the partnership the appellant 'Sejeadvances of money to the respondent for partnership purposes. The trap wes foated, and theappellant and respondent as vendors, transferred fait the varius agencies in return for « large number of shares in the com- puns. 'The appellant shortly afterwards brought an action at common law to Feover from the respondent certain sums which he alleged to be due to him - 'ealalance on accounts stated between them, for money had and received by «the respondent to his use, the transactions out of which the claim arose Ieingprind facie in respect of matters within the partnership agreement,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate