Imprisonmrnt--is--any restraint of a person's liberty, whether it be in prison or elsewhere. Any unlawful imprisonment, whatever may be the ground of illegality, constitutes duress, and avoids a contract entered into by the person imprisoned for the purpose of regaining his liberty.11 Under the older rule, the imprisonment must have been illegal; lawful imprisonment, whatever might be the circumstances, was not regarded as duress;12 and this rule has been adhered to in some of the modern cases.13 By the overwhelming weight of modern authority, however, the rule has been so far modified that now even a legal imprisonment will constitute duress if the process is sued out maliciously and without probable cause, or if it is sued out with probable cause, but for an unlawful purpose; as, for instance, where a legal arrest for crime is procured for the purpose of coercing payment of a private demand, or if the imprisonment, though legal, is made unjustly oppressive.1* All the courts agree, however, that if the imprisonmerit is lawful, and there is no abuse of process, there is no duress.15

9 Pierce v. Brown, 7 Wall. 205. 19 L. Ed. 134; Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 154; Love v. State, 78 Ga. 66, 3 S. E. 893, 6 Am. St. Rep. 234. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

10 Price v. Bank of Poynette, 144 Wis. 190. 128 N. W. 895. See "Contracts;' Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

11 Osborn v. Robbins, 36 N. Y. 365; Guilleaume v. Rowe, 94 N. Y. 268, 46 Am. Rep. 141; Stepney v. Lloyd, Cro. Eliz. 647, Ewell, Lead. Cas. 760; Fish-er v. Shattuck, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 252; Alexander v. Pierce, 10 N. H. 494; Whitefield v. Longfellow, 13 Me. 146; Thompson v. Lockwood, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 256; Bowker v. Lowell, 49 Me. 429; Tilley v. Damon, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 247. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

12 2 Co. Inst 483; Shep. Touch. 6.

13 Clark v. Turnbull, 47 N. J. Law, 265, 54 Am. Rep. 157; Kelsey T. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269. 10 L. Ed. 961; Taylor v. Cottrell, 16 I11. 93; Heaps v. Dunham, 95 I11. 583; McCormick Harvester Co. v. Miller, 54 Neb. 644, 74 N. W. 1061. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

14 Watkins v. Baird, 6 Mass. 506, 4 Am. Dec. 170; Richardson v. Duncan, 3 N. H. 508; Seiber v. Price, 26 Mich. 518; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9, 82 Am. Dec. 395; Schoener v. Lissauer, 107 N. Y. Ill, 13 N. E. 741; Bane v. Detrick, 52 I11. 19; Work's Appeal, 59 Pa. 444; Phelps v. Zuschlag, 34 Tex. 871; Holmes v. Hill, 19 Mo. 159; Foley v. Greene, 14 R. I. 618, 51 Am. Rep.

The rule that the imprisonment must be unlawful applies equally to duress per minas, where the threat is of imprisonment. A threat of unlawful arrest and imprisonment is duress,18 but, as a rule, a threat of lawful imprisonment is not.17 A threat, for instance, by a creditor, to bring a suit against his debtor, and procure his arrest therein, is not duress where the creditor may lawfully so proceed.18 It has also been said, without qualification, that, if a person has been wronged by the embezzlement or other criminal act of another, it is not duress to threaten him with a criminal prosecution, and thereby coerce him into giving a notev or otherwise settling for the injury.1' As we have seen, however, a strictly legal imprisonment procured for the purpose of enforcing a private demand is an abuse of process, and constitutes duress; and on the same principle it has been held duress to threaten imprisonment for such a purpose.20

419; Town of Sharon v. Gager, 46 Conn. 189; Bentley v. Robson, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146; Behl v. Schuett, 104 Wis. 76, 80 N. W. 73. See "Contracts." Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ J,31-U0.

15 Soule v. Bouney, 37 Me. 128; Prichard v. Sharp, 51 Mich. 432, 16 N. W. 798; Felton v. Gregory, 130 Mass. 176; Taylor v. Cottrell, 16 111. 93; Nea-ley v. Greenough, 25 N. H. 325; Smith v. Atwood, 14 Ga. 402; Stouffer v. Latshaw, 2 Watts (Pa.) 165, 27 Am. Dec. 297; State v. Such, 53 N. J. Law, 351, 21 Atl. 852; Meek v. Atkinson, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 84, 19 Am. Dec. 653; Stebbins v. Niles, 25 Miss. 267, 349; Mascolo v. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 23 Atl. 714, 29 Am. St. Rep. 170; Marvin v. Marvin, 52 Ark. 425, 12 S. W. 875, 20 Am. St. Rep. 191; Harrison Tp. v. Addison, 176 Ind. 389, 96 N. B. 146. And see Medrano v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 214, 22 S. W. 684, 40 Am. St Rep. 775. See "Contracts," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

16 GALUSHA v. SHERMAN, 105 Wis. 263, 81.N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 200. And see ante, p. 299., See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 481-UO.

17 Mullin v. Leamy, 80 N. J. Law, 484, 79 Atl. 257. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ tfl-UO.

18 Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N. T. 224, 3 N. E. 76; Clark v. Turnbull, 47 N. J. Law, 265, 54 Am. Rep. 157; Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me. 482, 7 Atl. 272, 57 Am. Rep. 816. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

19 Eddy v. Herrin, 17 Me. 338, 35 Am. Dec. 261; Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me. 482, 7 Atl. 272, 57 Am. Rep. 816; Taylor v. Cottrell, 16 I11. 93; Sanford v. Sornborger, 20 Neb. 295, 41 N. W. 1102; Thorn v. Pinkham, 84 Me. 103, 24 Atl. 718, 30 Am. St. Rep. 335; Weber v. Barrett, 125 N. Y. 18, 25 N. E. 1068; Compton v. Bank, 96 I11. 301, 36 Am. Rep. 147. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

20 See Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mass. 233, 27 N. E. 1010, 29 N. E. 525; Adams v. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 23 N. E. 7, 6 I;. R. A. 491, 15 Am. St Rep. 447; Miller v. Bryden, 34 Mo. App. 602; Morrison v. Faulkner, 80 Tex. 128, 15 S. W. 797; Schultz v. Catlin, 78 Wis. 611, 47 N. W. 946; Morrill v. Night-