Under the stricter rule which formerly prevailed, a promise was not given under duress if made in consideration of the release of goods from unlawful destruction or detention, and there is modern authority to the same effect.21 Most courts, however, have established a more liberal rule, and regard duress of goods under oppressive circumstances as sufficient to avoid a contract.22 Duress in this connection must not be confounded with want of consideration. If the detention were obviously without right, the promise would be void because of want of consideration; if the right were doubtful, the promise might be supported by a comingale, 93 Cal. 452, 28 Pac. 1068, 27 Am. St. Rep. 207; Bryant v. Peck, 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. E. 678; Lighthall v. Moore, 2 Colo. App. 554, 31 Pac. 511; Heaton v. Norton Co. State Bank, 59 Kan. 281, 52 Pac. 876. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 431-440.

21 Atlee v. Backhouse, 3 Mees. & W. 633; Skeate v. Beale, 11 Adol. & E. 9S3; Hazelrigg v. Donaldson, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 445. See "Contracts," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 95; Cent. Dig. §§ 481-440.

22 Lonergan v. Buford, 148 U. S. 581, 13 Sup. Ct. 684, 37 L. Ed. 569; U. S. v. Huckabee, 16 Wall. 432, 21 L. Ed. 457; Foshay v. Ferguson, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 154; Sasportas v. Jennings, 1 Bay (S. C.) 470; Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99, 62 Am. Dec. 142; White v. Heylman, 34 Pa. 142; Motz v. Mitchell, 91 Pa. 114; Miller v. Miller, 68 Pa. 486; Pemberton v. Williams, 87 111. 15; Scholey v. Mumford, 60 N. Y. 498; McPherson v. Cox, 86 N. Y. 472; Crawford v. Cato, 22 Ga. 594; Bennett v. Ford, 47 Ind. 264; Oliphant v. Mark-ham, 79 Tex. 543, 15 S. W. 569, 23 Am. St. Rep. 363; McCormick v. Dalton. 53 Kan. 146, 35 Pac. 1113; Fuller v. Roberts, 35 Fla. 110, 17 South. 359. A note given, or money paid, to obtain release of goods from attachment fraudulently obtained, may, under some circumstances, be avoided or recovered back. Chandler v. Sanger, 114 Mass. 364, 19 Am. Rep. 367; Collins v. West-bury, 2 Bay (S. C.) 211, 1 Am. Dec. 643; Spaids v. Barrett, 57 I11. 289, 11 Am. Rep. 10; Nelson v. Suddarth, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 350. But seizure of property claimed by A. under attachment against B. is not duress of A. Kingsbury v. Sargent, 83 Me. 230, 22 Atl. 105. So, where a note is given, or money paid, to prevent seizure of property under execution fraudulently obtained, Thurman v. Burt, 53 111. 129; or under warrant for the collection of illegal tax or assessment, Boston & S. Glass Co. v. City of Boston, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 181; Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester, 101 N. Y. 240, 4 N. E. 272; Bradford v. City of Chicago, 25 111. 411. Exactions by carrier before de-delivery of property. Beckwith v. Frisbie, 32 Vt. 559; Tutt v. Ide, 3 Blatchf. 249, Fed. Cas. No. 14,275b; Harmony v. Bingham, supra. Refusal by carrier to transport freight Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Cravens, 57 Ark. 112, 20 S. W. 803, 18 L. R A. 527. 38 Am. St. Rep. 230. Refusal by carrier to carry stock which has been loaded on cars, unless shipper will sign special contract. Atchison R. Co. v. Dill, 48 Kan. 210, 29 Pac. 148. Refusal by banker to honor check unless fraudulent claim is acceded to, held duress. Adams v. Schiffer, 11 Colo. 15, 17 Pac. 21, 7 Am. St. Rep. 202. Threat to file mechanic's lien. Gates v. Dundon (City Ct. N. Y.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 149. Exactions by customs officer as condition to delivery of property. Maxwell v.

promise. A mere refusal to pay money unless the creditor signs a receipt in full is not duress;23 nor is the refusal of a debtor to pay a debt, even where the creditor is in straitened circumstances and needs the money.2* So a threat to institute a civil action,25 or to levy an attachment or execution,26 is not duress.