A reader just emailed me about this post, describing the time my Contracts professor embarrassed me in front of the class by tricking me into predicting that Judge Andrews would have voted differently in Wood v. Lucy then he had in Strong v. Sheffield. The embarrassment came when it was discovered that Judge Andrews joined the opinion in Wood v. Lucy that was directly contrary to the result in Strong v. Sheffield.
Well, it turns out that I'm vindicated. You see, the two cases involved two entirely different Judge Andrewses. Strong v. Sheffield was decided in 1894, when Judge Charles Andrews was on the court (1870 - 1897). Wood v. Lucy was decided in 1917, when Charles was no longer around but William Andrews (1917-1928) had recently joined the court. So, two different Andrewses, two different results, and a really really sneaky question from an abnormally devious professor. Who, by the way, I'll be emailing forthwith.
Many thanks to the reader who brought this to my attention.
Poor Judge Andrews (Charles, that is).
And you were going to punch him in the head, the poor guy.
Tsk, tsk. ;)
Do post on what the prof replies, yes?
What I'm surprised you failed to mention is that you emailed your former contracts professor, who long ago forgot that you existed, to bitch about something that happened in a class 4 years ago. I'm sure he'll get right on that.
Foo on DrMH - if that prof is sailing along telling students that it's the same Andrews and he reversed himself in the subsequent decision then that's worth letting him know about.
First off, I did mention that I was planning on emailing the professor. I didn't say that I had already emailed the professor because I wasn't writing in the future.
Second, as Don points out, I'm trying to save future generations of 1Ls from falling victim to this particular ambiguity.