As a rul a contract entered into in order to relieve a third person is not voidable on the ground of duress.27 It should be noted, however, that a simple contract, the consideration for which is the discharge of a third person from illegal imprisonment, would be void for want of consideration.28 Though the law does not regard a person as under duress who enters into a contract to relieve a stranger, it is otherwise where the person relieved is a near relative, as a husband, wife, parent, or child.29 These are the only relationships generally mentioned in the books, but the rule has been extended to other relationships, as of brother, sister, grandparent, or grandchild.30

Griswold, 10 How. 242, 13 L. Ed. 405; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet 137, 9 L. Ed. 373. Threats to prevent clearance of vessel, with power to carry out, is duress of ship's master. Baldwin v. Timber Co., 65 Hun, 625, 20 N. T. Supp. 496. And see McPherson v. Cox, supra. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

23 Earle v. Berry, 27 R. I. 221, 61 Atl. 671, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867, 8 Ann. Cas. 875. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

24 Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 509, 8 N. W. 511; Secor v. Clark, 117 N. Y. 350, 22 N. E. 754; Cable v. Foley, 45 Minn. 421, 47 N. W. 1135; Adams v. Schiffer, 11 Colo. 15, 17 Pac. 21, 7 Am. St. Rep. 202; Doyle v. Church, 133 N. Y. 372, 31 N. E. 221 See "Contracts," Deo. Dig. (Key-No).) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

25 McClair v. Wilson, 18 Colo. 82, 31 Pac. 502; Whittaker v. Improvement Co., 34 W. Va. 217, 12 S. E. 507; Wilson S. M. Co. v. Curry, 126 Ind. 161, 25 N. E. 896; Atkinson v. Allen, 71 Fed. 58, 17 C. C. A. 570; York v. Hinkle, 80 Wis. 624, 50 N. W. 895, 27 Am. St. Rep. 73; Bestor v. Hickie, 71 Conn. 181, 41 Atl. 555; Hart v. Strong, 183 I11. 349, 55 N. E. 629. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440

26 Wilcox v. Howland, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 167; Waller v. Cralle, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 11; Stover v. Mitchell, 45 I11. 213. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

27Robinson v. Gould, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 55; Plummer v. People, 16 I11. 358; Phillips v. Henry, 160 Pa. 24, 28 Atl. 477, 40 Am. St. Rep. 706; Jones v. Turner, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 147; Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. Law, 48, 32 Am. Rep. 180; Spaulding v. Crawford, 27 Tex. 155; Lewis v. Bannister, 16 Gray (Mass.) 500 (creditors). A surety cannot avoid a common-law bond or note on the ground that his principal was under duress. Huscombe v. Standing, Cro. Jac. 187; Graham v. Marks, 98 Ga. 67, 25 S. E. 931. Contra, Strong v. Grannis, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 122. But it is otherwise in the case of statutory bonds, such as a bond given under a statute to release the principal from imprisonment, where the imprisonment is illegal. In such case the officer has no right to take the bond, and it is void. Thompson v. Lockwood, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 256. And see State v. Brantley, 27 Ala. 44; Patterson v. Gibson, 81 Ga. 802, 10 S. E. 9, 12 Am. St. Rep. 356; Fisher v. Shattuck, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 252; Jones v. Turner, 5 Litt (Ky.) 147. But see Plummer v. People, 16 I11. 358; Huggins v. People, 39 I11. 246; Inhabitants of Bordentown Tp. v. Wallace, 50 N. J. Law, 13, 11 AtL 267. See "Contracts," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

28Ante, p. 153.