One element of the early law of duress continues to exist, however the boundaries of the defence may be extended. The pressure must be wrongful, and not all pressure is wrongful.17 The law provides certain means for the enforcement of their claims by creditors. It is not duress to threaten to take these means. Therefore a threat to bring action is not such duress as to justify rescission of a transaction induced thereby,18

Ga. App. 18, 72 S. E. 604; Overstreet v. Dunlap, 56 111. App. 486; Baldwin v. Hutchinson, 8 Ind. App. 454, 35 N. E. 711; Denney v. Reber, 63 Ind. App. 192, 114 N. K 424; Callendar Say. Bank v. Loos, 142 Iowa, 1, 120 N. W. 317; Silabee v. Webber, 171 Mass. 378, 50 N. E. 555; Anthony & Cowell Co. p. Brown, 214 Mass. 430, 101 N. E. 1066; Cribbs v. Sowle, 87 Mich. 340, 49 N. W. 587, 24 Am. St. Rep. 166; Miller v. Minor Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 57 N. W. 101, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524; Wood v. Kansas City Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537,123 S. W. 6; Gate City Nat. Bank v. Elliott (Mo.), 181S. W. 25; Nebraska Mutual Bond Ass'n v. KLee, 70 Neb. 383, 97 N. W. 476; Earle v. Norfolk, etc., Hosiery Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 188; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9, 82 Am. Dec. 395; Farmentier v. Pater, 13 Oreg. 121, 130, 9 Fac. 59; Subner v. Cappeau-Lemley, etc., Co., 234 Pa. 162, 83 Atl. 103, 39 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 421; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 81 N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417.

16 See supra, Sec. 1516.

17 Connolly v. Bouck, 174 Fed. 312, 98 C. C. A. 184; Miller v. Davis' Est., 52 Colo. 485, 122 Pac. 793; United States Banking Co. v. Veale, 84 Kans.

385, 114 Pac. 229, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 540; Dispeau v. First Nat. Bank, 24 R. I. 508, 53 Atl. 568; and see cases in the following notes.

18 Hamlet v. Richardson, 9 Bing. 644; Moore v. Vestry, [1895] 1 Q. B. 399; Vick v. Shinn, 49 Ark. 70, 4 S. W. 60, 4 Am. St. Rep. 26; Burke v. Gould, 105 Cal. 277,38 Pac. 733; Bestor v. Hickey, 71 Conn. 181, 41 Atl. 555; Hart v. Strong, 183 111. 349, 55 N. E. 629; VanAlstine v. McAldon, 141 111. App. 27; Buck v. Axt, 85 Ind. 512; Paulson v. Barger, 132 Iowa, 547, 109 N. W. 1081; United States Banking Co. v. Veale, 84 Kans. 385, 114 Pac. 229, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 540; Kingsbury v. Sargent, 83 Me. 230, 22 Atl. 105; Parker v. Lancaster, 84 Me. 512, 24 Atl. 952; Vereycken v. Vanden Brooks, 102 Mich. 119, 60 N. W. 687; Minneapolis Land Co. v. McMillan, 79 Minn. 287, 82 N. W. 591; Wolfe v. Marshall, 52 Mo. 167; Dausch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323, 19 S. W. 61; Weber v Kirkendall, 44 Neb. 766, 63 N. W. 35; Jones v. Houghton, 61 N. H. 51; Turner v. Barber, 66 N. J. L. 496, 49 Atl. 676; Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N. Y. 224, 3 N. E. 76; Lilienthal v. George Bechtel Brewing Co., 118 N. Y. App. D. 205, even though there is no legal right to enforce the claim,19 provided the threat is made in good faith; that is, in the belief that a possible cause of action exists. But if the threat is made with the consciousness that there is no real right of action and the purpose is coercion, a payment or contract induced thereby is voidable.20, In the former case it may be said that the threatened action was rightful; in the latter case it was not*1 As foreclosure is a lawful means for securing a mortgagee's claim, threats of foreclosure do not amount to duress; 22 nor do threats that one entitled to establish a mechanic's lien,23 or to enjoin either the presentation of a play,24 or the use of premises in violation of a covenant,25 will adopt this course unless his claim is settled. A threat by a creditor to apply for a receiver made under circumstances which would justify the application will not render voidable a transaction induced thereby; 26 and "The collection of taxes through threats, by the authorities of a municipality to which they are owing, that unless the sum due is paid, the owner's right to redeem will be barred or foreclosed, does not amount to unlawful coercion and is not duress;"27 nor does the threatened resignation of an administrator,28 or the threat of a widow as to the place of burial of her deceased husband.29

102 N. Y. S 1061; Peebles v. Pittsburgh, 101 Pa. St. 304, 47 Am. Hep. 714; C. & J. Michel Brewing Co. v. State, 19 S. D. 302, 103 N. W. 40, 70 L. R. A. 911; Flack v. National Bank, 8 Utah, 103, 30 Pac. 746, 17 L. R. A. 583; Burnham v. Strafford, 63 Vt. 610; York v. Hinkle, 80 Wis. 624, 0 N. W. 895, 27 Am. St. Rep. 73.

19 Bestor v. Hickey, 71 Conn. 181, 41 Atl. 555; Peckham v. Hendren, 76 Ind. 47; Lester v. Mayor, 29 Md. 415, 96 Am. Deo. 542; Zent v. Lewis, 90 Wash. 651, 156 Pac. 848.

20 Foote v. DePoy, 126 Iowa, 366, 102 N. W. 112, 68 L. R. A. 302, 106 Am. St. Rep. 365. See also Rose 0. Owen, 42 Ind. App. 137, 85 N. E. 129; Callendar Savings Bank v. Loos, 142 Iowa, 1,120 N. W. 317; Behl v. Schuett,

104 Wis. 76, 80 N. W. 73. 21 See supra, Sec. 135.

22 Vick v. Shinn, 49 Ark. 70,45 8. W. 60, 4 Am. St. Rep. 26; Burke 0. Gould,

105 Cal. 277, 38 Pac. 733; Savannah Sav. Bank v. Logan, 99 Ga. 291, 25 S. E. 692; Hart 0. Strong, 188 111. 349,

56 N. E. 629; Bucks. Axt, 85 Ind. 512; Stout v. Judd, 10 Eans. App. 579, 63 Pac. 662; Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me. 482, 7 Atl. 272, 67 Am. Rep. 816; Vereycken v. Vanden Brooks, 102 Midi. 119, 60 N. W. 687; Nutting 0. McCutcheon, 6 Minn. 382; Koewing v. West Orange, 89 N. J. L. 539, 90 Atl. 203; Martin 0. New Rochelle Water Co., 11 N. Y. App. Div. 177, 42 N. Y. S. 893, affd. 162 N. Y. 509, 57 N. E. 1117; Weasel 0. Johnston Land 6 Mtge. Co., 3 N. Dak. 160, 54 N. W. 922, 44 Am. St. Rep. 529; F. B. Collins Investment Co. v. Easley, 44 Old. 429, 144 Pac. 1072; Pease v. Francis, 25 R. I. 226, 55 Atl. 686; Shuck v. Interstate Building, etc., Association, 63 S. C. 134, 41 S. E. 28.

23 Abelman 0. Indelli, etc., Co., 170 N. Y. App. Div. 740, 156 N. Y. S. 401.

24 Hart v. Walsh, 84 N. Y. Miac 431, 146 N. Y. S. 235.

25 Ripy Bros. Distilling Co. v. Iillard, 149 Ky. 726, 149 S. W. 1009.

26 Minneapolis Land' Co. 0. McMillan, 79 Minn. 287, 82 N. W. 591.