From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
S.P. Dunham & Company v. Kudra
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
131 A.2d 306 (1957)
Facts
S.P. Dunham & Company (Dunham) (plaintiff) operated a department store. It leased its fur department to Elmer A. Hurwitz & Co. (Hurwitz). Dunham’s customers brought their fur coats to Hurwitz for storage and cleaning. Unbeknownst to Dunham’s customers, Hurwitz turned the coats over to George M. Kudra (defendant), a competitor of Dunham’s, for storage and cleaning. In November 1955, Hurwitz underwent bankruptcy. At the time, Kudra was in possession of 412 coats, for which Hurwitz owed $622.50. Dunham offered to pay the balance. However, Kudra demanded Dunham also pay Hurwitz’s additional outstanding balance of $3,232.55 before Kudra would return the coats. Dunham requested a few days to consider the demand. In the interim, many of Dunham’s customers began demanding their coats due to a drop in temperature that fall. Dunham sought further negotiations, and Kudra proposed that Kudra deliver the coats directly to Dunham’s customers and bill them directly. Dunham refused this proposal. On November 29, 1955, Dunham paid the entire sum previously demanded by Kudra. On December 15, 1955, Dunham sued Kudra, seeking a return of $3,232.55 on grounds that the amount was paid under business compulsion. The trial court ruled in Dunham’s favor. Kudra appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clapp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
