Aha! Good -- but either way, you cite the reference to the book/article you read. Otherwise you could be seen as disingenuous or even pretending (lying) that you'd read the original book, when you hadn't.
In your case, you'd need to write something like:
"In supporting her case for confusion, Jane Bloggs draws on Mary Smith's notion of bewilderment. Bloggs argues that Smith's examples 'offer clarity to the confused' and quotes Smith's concept of eclaircissement." For that, you reference could be EITHER (Smith, cited in Bloggs, 2013, 89) or just (Bloggs, 2013, 89).
Of course if you're a MA/PhD student, I'd be requiring you to go to the original book. If you find Jane Bloggs' citation of Mary Smith useful, then reading Mary Smith's original book may be useful to you, and you'll get more than just Jane Bloggs' view and selective editing of Mary Smith.
see how exciting my life is before term starts