Charles Mitchell is a Professor of Law at King's College London. He is the author of, The Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (OUP, 2003) and co-author of Hayton and Marshall's Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies 12th edn (Sweet Maxwell, 2005). Paul Mitchell is a Senior Lecturer in Law at King's College London and the author of The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation (Hart, 2005).

• 1. Lamplugh v Brathwaite (1615)DAVID IBBETSON2. Moses v Macferlan (1760)WARREN SWAIN3. Taylor v Plumer (1815)LIONEL SMITH4. Planché v Colburn (1831)CHARLES MITCHELL AND CHARLOTTE MITCHELL5.Marsh v Keating (1834)JAMES EDELMAN6. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878)MICHAEL LOBBAN7. Phillips v Homfray (1883)WILLIAM SWADLING8. Allcard v Skinner (1887)CHARLOTTE SMITH9. Sinclair v Brougham (1914)EOIN O’DELL10. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1942) PAUL MITCHELL11. Re Diplock (1948)TIM AKKOUH AND SARAH WORTHINGTON12. Solle v Butcher (1950)CATHARINE MACMILLAN

...useful insights into the role some cases played in bringing the law of restitution to where it is today... David Capper Restitution Law Review ...a fine example of the kind of historical investigation that should be the foundation of all common law scholarship...These essays should be read not just by legal historians or restitution lawyers but also those interested in the workings of the common law generally. Tariq A Baloch King's Law Journal Volume 18, Issue 1, 2007 Many of the essays contain a detailed account of the story behind the case and make highly entertaining reading. They recount facts which are not found in the law reports but are the product of wide-ranging and painstaking research...some essays are highly entertaining tales of ancient skulduggeries, others indispensable guides to difficult but important cases. If we are to understand the present law, we need to learn from our predecessors' mistakes, and these are thoroughly investigated in this volume. Lord Millett The Law Quarterly Review, Volume 123 January 2007 The legal historian will enjoy reading those essays that are deeply historical, involving a detailed examination of the facts of particular cases, far beyond the analysis of the facts in the reports of those cases. The practitioner will enjoy reading those chapters that discuss cases that remain of present importance, or which place an historical analysis of an old case in a present day context...All in all, this book shows how valuable the work of jurists in the academies can be. Fascinating and important insights are revealed when a magnifying glass is placed over a small part of the law, and the detail that is revealed by that focus is then viewed in a wider context. Sometimes the results of those endeavours capture historical detail that would otherwise be lost. On other occasions, the enormous amount of work performed by academic jurists plays an important role in the development of modern legal principles. All of the essays in this book do at least one of these things, and some of them do both. Jonathon Moore Journal of Equity 2007

Charles Mitchell is a Professor of Law at King's College London. He is the author of, The Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (OUP, 2003) and co-author of Hayton and Marshall's Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies 12th edn (Sweet Maxwell, 2005). Paul Mitchell is a Senior Lecturer in Law at King's College London and the author of The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation (Hart, 2005).

• 1. Lamplugh v Brathwaite (1615)DAVID IBBETSON2. Moses v Macferlan (1760)WARREN SWAIN3. Taylor v Plumer (1815)LIONEL SMITH4. Planché v Colburn (1831)CHARLES MITCHELL AND CHARLOTTE MITCHELL5.Marsh v Keating (1834)JAMES EDELMAN6. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878)MICHAEL LOBBAN7. Phillips v Homfray (1883)WILLIAM SWADLING8. Allcard v Skinner (1887)CHARLOTTE SMITH9. Sinclair v Brougham (1914)EOIN O’DELL10. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1942) PAUL MITCHELL11. Re Diplock (1948)TIM AKKOUH AND SARAH WORTHINGTON12. Solle v Butcher (1950)CATHARINE MACMILLAN

...useful insights into the role some cases played in bringing the law of restitution to where it is today... David Capper Restitution Law Review ...a fine example of the kind of historical investigation that should be the foundation of all common law scholarship...These essays should be read not just by legal historians or restitution lawyers but also those interested in the workings of the common law generally. Tariq A Baloch King's Law Journal Volume 18, Issue 1, 2007 Many of the essays contain a detailed account of the story behind the case and make highly entertaining reading. They recount facts which are not found in the law reports but are the product of wide-ranging and painstaking research...some essays are highly entertaining tales of ancient skulduggeries, others indispensable guides to difficult but important cases. If we are to understand the present law, we need to learn from our predecessors' mistakes, and these are thoroughly investigated in this volume. Lord Millett The Law Quarterly Review, Volume 123 January 2007 The legal historian will enjoy reading those essays that are deeply historical, involving a detailed examination of the facts of particular cases, far beyond the analysis of the facts in the reports of those cases. The practitioner will enjoy reading those chapters that discuss cases that remain of present importance, or which place an historical analysis of an old case in a present day context...All in all, this book shows how valuable the work of jurists in the academies can be. Fascinating and important insights are revealed when a magnifying glass is placed over a small part of the law, and the detail that is revealed by that focus is then viewed in a wider context. Sometimes the results of those endeavours capture historical detail that would otherwise be lost. On other occasions, the enormous amount of work performed by academic jurists plays an important role in the development of modern legal principles. All of the essays in this book do at least one of these things, and some of them do both. Jonathon Moore Journal of Equity 2007

Charles Mitchell is a Professor of Law at King's College London. He is the author of, The Law of Contribution and Reimbursement (OUP, 2003) and co-author of Hayton and Marshall's Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies 12th edn (Sweet Maxwell, 2005). Paul Mitchell is a Senior Lecturer in Law at King's College London and the author of The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation (Hart, 2005).

• 1. Lamplugh v Brathwaite (1615)DAVID IBBETSON2. Moses v Macferlan (1760)WARREN SWAIN3. Taylor v Plumer (1815)LIONEL SMITH4. Planché v Colburn (1831)CHARLES MITCHELL AND CHARLOTTE MITCHELL5.Marsh v Keating (1834)JAMES EDELMAN6. Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878)MICHAEL LOBBAN7. Phillips v Homfray (1883)WILLIAM SWADLING8. Allcard v Skinner (1887)CHARLOTTE SMITH9. Sinclair v Brougham (1914)EOIN O’DELL10. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1942) PAUL MITCHELL11. Re Diplock (1948)TIM AKKOUH AND SARAH WORTHINGTON12. Solle v Butcher (1950)CATHARINE MACMILLAN

...useful insights into the role some cases played in bringing the law of restitution to where it is today... David Capper Restitution Law Review ...a fine example of the kind of historical investigation that should be the foundation of all common law scholarship...These essays should be read not just by legal historians or restitution lawyers but also those interested in the workings of the common law generally. Tariq A Baloch King's Law Journal Volume 18, Issue 1, 2007 Many of the essays contain a detailed account of the story behind the case and make highly entertaining reading. They recount facts which are not found in the law reports but are the product of wide-ranging and painstaking research...some essays are highly entertaining tales of ancient skulduggeries, others indispensable guides to difficult but important cases. If we are to understand the present law, we need to learn from our predecessors' mistakes, and these are thoroughly investigated in this volume. Lord Millett The Law Quarterly Review, Volume 123 January 2007 The legal historian will enjoy reading those essays that are deeply historical, involving a detailed examination of the facts of particular cases, far beyond the analysis of the facts in the reports of those cases. The practitioner will enjoy reading those chapters that discuss cases that remain of present importance, or which place an historical analysis of an old case in a present day context...All in all, this book shows how valuable the work of jurists in the academies can be. Fascinating and important insights are revealed when a magnifying glass is placed over a small part of the law, and the detail that is revealed by that focus is then viewed in a wider context. Sometimes the results of those endeavours capture historical detail that would otherwise be lost. On other occasions, the enormous amount of work performed by academic jurists plays an important role in the development of modern legal principles. All of the essays in this book do at least one of these things, and some of them do both. Jonathon Moore Journal of Equity 2007