Since there is no impropriety in the use of such means, it follows that suggestion, argument, entreaties, advice, and persuasion, unless there is some special relation between the parties giving one ascendancy over the other, or unless carried to such an extreme as to coerce the will of the person addressed, will not render a transaction voidable.35

Nor is it duress or undue influence when a party is constrained to enter into a transaction by force of circumstances for which the other party is not responsible.36 But it seems

35 Bowdoin College v. Merritt, 75 Fed. 480, 109 U. S. 551, 18 Sup. Ct. 415, 42 L. Ed. 850; Sawyer v. White, 122 Fed. 223, 58 C. C. A. 587; Adair v. Craig, 135 Ala. 332, 33 So. 902; Rogers v. Higgins, 57 111. 244; Burt v. Quisen-berry, 132 111. 385, 24 N. E. 622; Beith v. Beith, 76 Iowa, 601, 41 N. W. 371; Seward v. Seward, 59 Kans. 387, 53 Pac. 63; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. La Chapelle, 212 Mass. 467, 99 N. . 289, Ann. Cas. 1913 D. 715; Hammond v. Welton, 106 Mich. 244, 64 N. W. 25; Clement v. Buckley Mercantile Co., 172 Mich. 243,137 N. W. 657; Fjone v. Fjone, 16 N. D. 100,112 N. W. 70; Coleman v. Coleman, 85 Oreg. 99, 166 Pac. 47; Longnecker v. Zion, etc., Church, 200 Pa. 567, 50 Atl. 244; DuBose v. Kell, 90 S. C. 196, 71 S. E. 371; Seat v. McWhirter, 93 Tenn. 542, 29 8. W. 220; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W. Va. 612, 30 S. E. 201, 67 Am. St. Rep. 788. Even persuasion, however, by one who is in a dominant position may invalidate a transaction, see infra, Sec. 1627.

36 Silliman v. United States, 101 U. S. 465, 25 L. Ed. 967; Jenkins S. S. Co. v. Preston, 186 Fed. 609, 108 C. C. A. 473; Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 469, 8 N. W. 511; Lilienthal v. George Bechtel Brewing Co., 118 N. Y. App. Div. 205, 102 N. Y. S. 1051; J. J. Little & Ives Co. v. Madison Paper Stock Co., 169 N. Y. S. 104; Custin v. Viroqua, 67 Wis. 314, 30 N. W. 515. In Horn v. Davis, 70 Or. 498, 142 Pac. 544, the plaintiff received a telegram that his wife was dangerously ill and stated that rather than stay and complete a pending negotiation he would surrender the defendant's note and call it settled. The surrender was held not voidable.

So also, neither "will want of money, nor distressing circumstances, avoid a contract of settlement. French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314, 20 L. Ed. 852; United States v. Huckabee, 16 Wall. 431, 21 L. Ed. 457; Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 74, 21 L. Ed. 564." Burnes v. Burnes, 132 Fed. 485, 493. Cf. English equity decisions, clear that if such circumstances were known and advantage taken of them by the other party a degree of pressure which would not ordinarily amount to duress, might have such coercive effect as to invalidate a transaction.