New Jersey Supreme Court
115 N.J. Super. 391, 279 A.2d 895 (1972)
Swift & Company (Swift) (plaintiff) brought an action against Erwin Smigel (defendant), executor of the estate of Joseph Smigel (Smigel), for the amount of $8,500 in unpaid merchandise it supplied to a nursing home. In 1962, Swift and Smigel entered into an agreement of “continuing guaranty” where Smigel would pay at maturity all indebtedness of the nursing home for goods delivered by Swift. Smigel was adjudicated incompetent in 1966, and his son, Erwin Smigel, was given guardianship. Neither Smigel nor his son paid for any delivered merchandise by Swift for most of 1967. The trial court granted Smigel’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment dismissing Swift’s complaint. Swift appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Conford, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.