By Whom

The duress, to be available as a defense, must have been inflicted or threatened by the other party to the contract, or by some one acting with his connivance.81 A person entering into a contract with another under duress exercised by a third person may avoid the contract if the third person was the other party's agent, or if the other party knew the circumstances,82 but not if he acted in good faith and without such knowledge.

Effect

A contract is not void because it was entered into under duress, but, as in the case of fraud, is merely voidable at the option of the injured party,83 and stands unless he sees fit to avoid or rescind

29 Harris v. Carmody, 131 Mass. 51, 41 Am. Rep. 1S8; Plummer v. People, 16 I11. 360; First Nat. Bank v. Bryan, 62 Iowa, 42, 17 N. W. 165; Lomerson v. Johnston, 44 N. J. Eq. 93, 13 Atl. 8; Brooks v. Berryhill, 20 Ind. 97; Southern Exp. Co. v. Duffey, 48 Ga. 361; Adams v. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 23 N. E. 7, 6 L. R. A. 491, 15 Am. St. Rep. 447; McClatchie Y. Haslam, 63 Law T. 376; Meech v. Lee, 82 Mich. 274, 46 N. W. 383; Bryant T. Peek, 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. E. 678; City Nat Bank v. Knsworm, 88 Wis. 188, 59 N. W. 564, 26 L. R. A. 48, 43 Am. St Rep. 880; Giddings v. Iowa Sav. Bank, 104 Iowa, 676, 74 N. W. 21; Heaton v. Norman Co.'s Bank, 59 Kan. 281, 52 Pac. 876; Davis t. Smith, 68 N. H. 253, 44 Atl. 384, 73 Am. St. Rep. 584; International Harvester Co. v. Voboril, 187 Fed. 973, 110 C. a A 311. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

30 Schultz v. Catlin, 78 Wis. 611, 47 N. W. 946; Bradley v. Irish, 42 I11. App. 85; Nebraska Mut Bond Ass"n v. Klee, 70 Neb. 383, 97 N. W. 476. It seems that it does not extend to master and servant. 1 Rolle, Abr. 687; Bac. Abr. "Duress," B; 2 Brownl. 276. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

31 Rolle, Abr. 688; Fairbanks v. Snow, 145 Mass. 153, 13 N. E. 596, 1 Am. St Rep. 446; Fightmaster v. Levi (Ky.) 17 S. W. 195; Sherman v. Sherman (Com. PI. N. T.) 20 N. T. Supp. 414; Compton v. Bank. 96 I11. 301, 36 Am. Rep. 147; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 29 I11. App. 516; Mullin v. Leamy, 80 N. J. Law, 484, 79 Atl. 257; Ely v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 128 Ky. 799, 110 S. W. 265, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 272. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

32 GALUSHA v. SHERMAN, 105 Wis. 263, 81 N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417. Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 200; Fairbanks v. Snow, supra; McClatchie v Haslam, 63 Law T. 376. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-UO.

33 Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 South. 231, in which, however, it is sugit. He may either ratify or disaffirm it, and may do so by his conduct.34 The rules as to the right to rescind a contract for fraud apply with equal force here, and it is unnecessary to repeat them.