»

Whatever definition be adopted, it is clear that in order that a transaction may be avoided on account of duress or undue influence, it must appear that the consent of the party seeking to avoid the transaction was coerced. That is, that he was actually induced by the duress or undue influence to give his consent, and would not have done so otherwise.12

10 Joannin v. Ogilvie, 49 Minn. 564, 568, 52 N. W. 217, 16 L. R. A. 376, 32 Am. St. Rep. 581.

11 In Sooy ads State, 38 N. J. L. 324, and Wright v. Remington, 41 N. J. L. 48, 32 Am. Rep. 180, the court held stiffly to the distinction between legal and equitable rules, and in the latter case held that there was no defence at law to notes signed by a married woman under threats of her husband that otherwise he would kill himself, though the notes had not come into the hands of a holder in due course. It is not likely that the decision would be generally followed. Cf. the definition of duress quoted supra, n. 9, in a later New Jersey decision.

12 Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 43 L. Ed. 597, 19 Sup. Ct. 332; Love v. State, 78 Ga. 66, 3 S. E. 893, 6 Am. St. Rep. 234; Kelly v. Perrault, 5 Idaho, 221, 48 Pac. 45; Van Alstine v. Mo-Aldon, 141 11I. App. 27; Shea v. Murphy, 164 111. 614, 45 N. E. 1021, 56 Am. St. Rep. 215; Rose v. Owen, 42 Ind. App. 137, 85 N. E. 129; Mallow v. Walker, 115 Iowa, 238, 88 N. W. 452, 91 Am. St. Rep. 158; Williamson, Halsell, Frazier Co. v. Ackerman, 77 Kans. 502, 94 Pac. 807, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484; Knight v. Brown, 137 Mich. 396, 100 N. W. 602; Dallavo v.