17s. 10d. Diwell arranged with William John Peden to do a
certain portion of the work and to advance certain moneys and material for the work; and, to secure Peden, gave him on 20th LITTLE.
July 1914 a written order addressed to the committee requesting them to pay to Peden the sum of £60 out of the balance of moneys due to Diwell on completion of the contract. The contract having been completed and the £60 not having been paid, Peden brought an action in the County Court at Casterton to recover that sum from the members of the committee as being due under the order or assignment of 20th July 1914. The plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that the assignment relied upon was void for non-registration under the Book Debts Act 1896. He then appealed to the Supreme Court but the appeal was dismissed.
The plaintiff now applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court from that decision.
H. Walker for the appellant. A single sum of money which will become due in the future under a contract of this kind is not a "book debt" within the definition in sec. 2 of the Book Debts Act 1896. That question was left open in Shackell v. Howe, Thornton &Palmer 1. Sec. 3 of that Act does not apply to an assignment of part of a single debt.
PER CURIAM. This is not a case for special leave. The appli- cation is refused.
Special leave to appeal refused. Solicitors, for the appellant, Weigall &Crowther for Frank W. Abbott, Casterton.
18 C.L.R. 170