Wilson v Carmichael [1904] HCA 45

Wilson v Carmichael [1904] HCA 45

There was in fact a partnership between Wilson and Carmichael. The 6,660 shares were partnership assets, entitling each partner to a lien for balance due upon accounting. The Chief Judge rightly declared the partnership, ordered accounting, and restrained proceeding with the common law action. The appeal fails, but the decree was varied by consent, omitting the receiver appointment and providing for transfer of shares subject to lien.

Parties
Appellant: Wilson; Respondent: Carmichael
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Chief Judge in Equity
Outcome
appeal dismissed with variation by consent
Legal Topics
Winding Up Partnership, Stay of Common Law Action, Accounting Between Partners, Receiver Appointment, Division of Shares, Partnership Assets, Lien on Partnership Property
Equity Partnership Law Winding Up Partnership Stay of Common Law Action Accounting Between Partners Receiver Appointment Division of Shares Partnership Assets +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilson

Appellant

Carmichael

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Chief Judge in Equity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a partnership between Wilson and Carmichael.
  2. 2 Whether shares allotted to the vendors were partnership assets.
  3. 3 Entitlement to account and stay of common law proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

There was in fact a partnership between Wilson and Carmichael. The 6,660 shares were partnership assets, entitling each partner to a lien for balance due upon accounting. The Chief Judge rightly declared the partnership, ordered accounting, and restrained proceeding with the common law action. The appeal fails, but the decree was varied by consent, omitting the receiver appointment and providing for transfer of shares subject to lien.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with variation by consent

Orders

  • Decree varied by consent to omit receiver appointment and direct parties to execute share transfers to each other, shares to be subject to a lien for any balance found due after accounting.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal.