Save in exceptional cases referred to in the previous section, duress renders the transaction voidable. It is not necessarily a tort in itself, as is fraudulent misrepresentation,87a but operates only as authorizing the rescission by the party coerced of a transaction whether executory or executed.88

Iowa, 97,107 N. W. 1034; Williamson-Halsell, etc., Co. v. Ackerman, 77 Kans. 602, 94 Pac. 807, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484; Fears v. United Loan, etc., Bank, 172 Ky. 255, 189 S. W. 226; Bryant v. Peck, etc., Co., 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. . 678; Bentley v. Robeon, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146; Davis v. Luster, 64 Mo. 43; Nebraska Mut. Bond. Assoc. v. Klee, 70 Neb. 383, 97 N. W. 476; Davis v. Smith, 68 N. H. 253, 44 Atl. 384, 73 Am. St. Rep. 584; Lomerson v. Johnston, 44 N. J. Eq. 93, 13 Atl. 8; Bali v;. Ball, 79 N. J. Eq. 170, 81 Atl. 724, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 539; Travis v. Unkart, 89 N. J. L. 571, 99 Atl. 320,

Ann. Cas. 1917 C. 1031; Adams v. Irving Nat. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 23 N. E. 7,6 L. R. A. 491,15 Am. St. Rep. 447; Anderson v. Kelley, 57 Okl. 109, 156 Pac. 1167; Guinn v. Sumpter Valley R. Co., 63 Or. 368, 127 Pac. 987; Horn v. Davis, 70 Or. 498, 142 Pac. 544; Oxford Nat. Bank v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 49; Kocourek v. Marak, 54 Tex. 201, 38 Am. Rep. 623.

86 See supra, Sec. 1603.

87 See Royal v. Goes, 154 Ala. 117, 121, 45 So. 231; Fairbanks v. Snow, 145 Mass. 153,154,13 N. E. 596,1 Am. St. Rep. 446; and infra, Sec. 1624.

The right of the injured party thus to rescind is a defeasible one which may be lost not only by affirmative acts in ratification of the transaction, but, at least where any advantage has been obtained from the transaction by the injured party, by his failure promptly to surrender the advantage and manifest an election to avoid the transaction. This is true not only in cases of what may be called common-law duress,89 but is also the rule in regard to contracts voidable for undue influence.90 No acts can constitute a ratification, however, which were done while the fear or undue influence which operated to induce the original transaction is still effective.91

87a See Woodward, Quasi Contracts, Sec. 211.

88 It is not voidable by the other party. Peirce v. Mclntire, 2 Dane's Abr. 224; Lewis v. Bannister, 16 Gray, 500; Mallard v. Day (Tex. Civ. App.), 204 S. W. 245.

89 This is stated in Bracton, 17, Twiss's translation, 135, where it is said that when a person detained by an enemy has recovered his liberty, he may ratify or invalidate things done by him while in prison: "So that, if afterwards he has approved things so done by him, either by not immediately revoking the gift, or by receiving homage or service, it is valid," and such is the modern law. Carver v. United States 111 U. S. 609, 4 Sup. Ct. 561,28 L. Ed. 450; Wheeler v. McNeil, 101 Fed. 685, 41 C. C. A. 604; Andrews v. Connolly, 145 Fed. 43; Royal v. Goes, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231; Gillespie v. Simpson (Ark.), 18 S. W. 1050; Miller v. Davis Est., 52 Colo. 485, 122 Pac. 793; Craig v. Ginn, 3 Pennew. 117, 48 Atl. 192, 53 L. R. A. 715, 94 Am. St. Rep. 77; Ferrari v. Board of Health, 24 Fla. 390, 50 So. 1; Eberstein v. Willetts, 134 111. 101, 24 N. E. 967; Knowlton v. Ross, 114 Me. 18, 95

Atl. 281; Miller v. Minor Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 57 N. W. 101, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524; Horn v. Beatty, 85 Miss. 504, 37 So. 833; Bushnell v. Loomis, 234 Mo. 371,137 S. W. 257,36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1029; Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo. App. 508, 142 S. W. 1082; Bodine v. Morgan, 37 N. J. Eq. 426; Myers v. Gray, 122 N. Y. S. 1079 (N. Y. Misc.); Guinn v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co., 63 Oreg. 368, 127 Pac. 987; Dispeau v. First Nat. Bank, 24 R. I. 508, 53 Atl. 868.

90 More v. More, 133 Cal. 489, 65 Pac. 1044, 66 Pac. 76; Albrecht v. Hunecke, 196 111. 127, 63 N. E. 616; Sanderson v. Adams, 133 Mich. 359, 94 N. W. 1063; Keller v. Lamb, 202 Pa. St. 412, 51 Atl. 982; Talbott v. Manard, 106 Tenn. 60, 59 S. W. 340.

91 Woodham v. Allen, 130 Cal. 194, 62 Pac. 398; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kans. 643, 100 Pac. 647, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 637; Quealy v. Waldron, 126 La. 258, 52 So. 479, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 803; Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164; Bentley v. Robson, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146; Bell v. Campbell, 123 Mo. 1, 25 S. W. 359, 45 Am. St. Rep. 505; Avakian v. Avakian, 69 N. J. Eq. 89, 60 Atl. 521.