Contracts Keyed to Calamari
Swift & Co. v. Smigel
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The Plaintiff, Swift and Company (the "Plaintiff"), brought suit against the Defendant, Erwin Smigel, executor of the estate of Joseph O. Smigel ("Mr. Smigel") (the "Defendant"), for $8,509.60. On November 11, 1962, the Plaintiff and Mr. Smigel and a third-party Defendant, Abe Kraig ("Mr. Kraig"), entered into a written agreement of "continuing guaranty" with the Plaintiff to "pay at maturity all indebtednesses of Pine Haven for goods to be sold and delivered to it by plaintiff." Pine Haven was a corporation that's shares were equally owned by Mr. Smigel and Mr. Kraig. Pine Haven was a nursing home and sanitarium. The parties' agreement "purported to cover all liabilities the buyer might incur until ten days after receipt of notice from the guarantor or his legal representatives of withdrawal of the guaranty." Neither the Plaintiff nor Mr. Smigel ever gave notice of withdrawal. Prior to the delivery certain goods to Pine Haven, Mr. Smigel was adjudicated incompetent on January 16, 1966, but the Plaintiff was not aware of this fact. The merchandise that was not paid for was delivered between January 4, 1967 and October 12, 1967. When Mr. Smigel died, Pine Haven declared bankruptcy and the Plaintiff filed this claim against the Defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff and they appeal.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.