Harrigan and others v. Gilchrist and others, [Eight appeals.]

Summary

The court held that the insolvent corporation was not an adverse party requiring service of the notices of appeal because it had no substantial interest in the disputed proceedings after its assets had been placed under court control. It further held that the appeals could be perfected by supplying separate undertakings and that statutory security-for-costs requirements did not violate constitutional protections. The court also concluded that equity jurisdiction permitted creditors to pursue, within the winding-up action, accounting and recovery claims against receivers and other participants who allegedly misappropriated trust assets.