Rankin v Palmer [1912] HCA 95

»R.J OF AUSTRALIA. 285

: full and explicit terms," "naming expressly." It would not H. C. or A. be an abuse of language, if a sheriff's officer ask a claimant to ee

" what articles in a house are his property, to say, "I peprrarep

y all the articles.' Here the clause specifies any question ,, ENcmr- 4 DRIVERS AND at arises under the award. FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION : or AusTRAL- Questions answered as follows :— ASIA

1. Yes, on the basis that the plaint first Broxen

validly came into ewistence on 24th Hr Pro-

PRIBTARY

November 1911. Co. Lrp.

2. Yes, so far as the Corporation is engaged in trading operations.

3. No.

or for the Commonwealth.

ApplAudet¥ Foll/Appl BL. Follaudey AER Wakam's HUET

fctl, Casual

imeein Goma

in Insurance

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] uN. , - - é es ; ' . APPELLANT;

AND

' PALMER (OrrictaL ASSIGNEE OF CROSS) . RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. H. ©. of A. 1912.

ctice— High Court—Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution—Failure to set =—— down appeal for hearing—T'ranscript, eatension of time for lodging—Rules of SYDNEY,

the High Court 1911, Part 11., Sec. IIL, rr. 15, 18. nae 25; mts Indemnity, action for—Principal and. agent—Money received by agent and paid ~~ over to principal—Declaration of agents' right to indemnity—Order to pay the eae aoe - arton an _money to agent—Subsequent bankruptcy of agent—Offcial assignee— Rights of. Tsaacs JJ.

H.C, or A, 1912, eer

Rankin v PALMER.

HIGH COURT

Where an appellant to the High Court from the Supreme Court of a SI who has given notice of appeal and lodged the security, has by a slip failed set down the appeal for hearing on the proper day, the appeal will not b dismissed for want of prosecution under the Rules of the High Court 191 Part IL., Sec. IIL., r. 15, when there is no reason to suppose that the appel does not intend to prosecute the appeal, if the respondent has suffered no loss, and if the slip has had no effect by way of putting off the hearing of th appeal.