From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
To: Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au>
obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 07/11/2017 12:28:20 UTC
Subject: RE: Misconstrued Cases

I wonder if you might be referring to Stilk v Myrick, and the different reports of what Lord Ellenborough said? Discussed here

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1999.tb00638.x/epdf

From: Peter Radan [peter.radan@mq.edu.au]
Sent: 07 November 2017 00:56
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Misconstrued Cases

Colleagues,


When in law school - decades ago - I call a professor referring to a case which had come to stand for authority for a legal principle, even though the decision itself did not expound such a principle. Apparently, later cases referred to an incorrect headnote in the report of the case as the principle that emerged from it.


I cannot recall the case (or the principle), but would be obliged if anyone can refer me to it - and thereby confirm that I still have a functioning memory. I would also be interested in knowing of any other instances where a case has become authority for a rule or principle which it did not state or declare.


Many thanks,


Peter Radan


Peter Radan FAAL

Professor of Law


Macquarie Law School  |   Level 5, W3A Building (Room 527)
 Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia


T: +61 2 9850 7091  |  F: +61 2 9850 9686 

E: peter.radan@mq.edu.au