By the weight of modern authority, threats of criminal prosecution for an act which has already been committed, may constitute duress if such threatened criminal prosecution will result eventually in imprisonment.1 Duress most clearly exists where the imprisonment threatened, appears to be imminent,2 as where it is believed that a warrant has issued,3 or where the husband of the person subjected to duress is in custody, though not under arrest.4

3 Berry v. Berry, 57 Kan. 691, 57 Am. St. Rep. 351, 47 Pac. 837.

4 Barrett v. Mahnken, 6 Wyom. 541, 71 Am. St. Rep. 953, 48 Pac. 202.

1 England. Kaufman v. Gerson [1904], 1 K. B. 591, 4 B. R. C. 414, 73 L. J. K. B. N. S. 320, 52 Week. Rep. 420, 90 L. T. N. S. 608.

United States. International Harvester Co. v. Voboril, 187 Fed. 973, 110 C. C. A. 311.

Alabama. Embry v. Adams, 191 Ala. 291, L. R. A. 1915D, 1118, 68 So. 20.

California. Morrill v. Nightingale, 93 Cal. 452, 27 Am. St. Rep. 207, 28 Pac. 1068.

Connecticut. Walbridge v. Arnold, 21 Conn. 424.

Florida. Burton v. McMillan, 52 FLa. 469, 120 Am. St. Rep. 220, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 991, 42 So. 849.

Georgia. Jordan v. Beecher, 143 Ga. 143, L. R. A. 1915D, 1122, 84 S. E. 549.

Illinois. Kronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1182, 101 N. E. 935.

Indiana. Baldwin v. Hutchinson, 8 Ind. App. 454, 35 N. E. 711.

Iowa, Gohegan v. Leach, 24 la. 509; Kaus v. Gracey, 162 Ia. 671, 144 N. W. 625.

Kansas. Winfield National Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan: 620, 26 Pac. 939; Thompson v. Niggley, 53 Kan. 664, 26 L. R. A. 803, 35 Pac. 290; Williamson,.Hal-sell, Frazier Co. v. Ackerman, 77 Kan 502, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 484, 94 Pac. 807.

Maryland. Spoerer v. Wehland, 130 Md. 226, 100 Atl. 287.

Massachusetts. Bryant v. Peck, 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. E. 678; Morse v. Wood-worth, 155 Mass. 233, 248, 27 N. E. 1010, 29 N. E. 525.

Michigan. Meech v. Lee, 82 Mich. 274, 46 N. W. 383; Cribbs v. Sowle, 87 Mich. 340, 24 Am. St. Rep. 166, 49 N. W. 587; Benedict v. Roome, 106 Mich. 378, 64 N. W. 193; Weiser v. Welch, 112 Mich. 134, 70 N. W. 438; Bentley v. Robson, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146.

Missouri. Hensinger v. Dyer, 147 Mo. 219, 48 S. W. 912.

Nebraska. Horton v. Bloedorn, 37 Neb. 666, 56 N. W. 321; Beindorf v. Kaufman, 41 Neb. 824, 60 N. W. 101; Hargreaves v. Korcek, 44 Neb. 660, 62 N. W. 1086; Hoellworth v. McCarthy,

93 Neb. 246, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 140 N. W. 141. "

Ohio. James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio 548; Ins. Co. v. Hull, 51 O. S. 270, 46 Am. St. Rep. 571, 25 L. R. A. 37, 37 N. E. 1116; State, exrel., v. Hills,

94 O. S. 171, L. R. A. 1917B, 684, 113 N. E. 1045; Western Avenue Bldg. Association v. Walters, 7 Ohio C. C. 202.

Oregon. Rostad v. Thorsen, 83 Or. 489, L. R. A. 1917D, 1170, 163 Pac. 423 [decree modified on rehearing, Rostad v. Thorsen, 83 Or. 489, L. R. A. 1917D, 1170, 163 Pac. 987].

Texas. Morrison v. Faulkner, 80 Tex. 128. 15 S. W. 797.

Wisconsin. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hamilton, 73 Wis. 486, 41 N. W. 727; Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis.

Some courts limit duress by threats of criminal prosecution to cases where the imprisonment threatened is immediate, and not merely the result of a successful prosecution.5 So a threat to institute criminal prosecution against one who is in another state6 or country,7 has been held not to be duress.

It has even been said that a threat of criminal prosecution is not duress as long as no warrant has issued.8 This rule is based on the old theory that only such acts as can be supposed to overcome the mind of an ordinary person can amount to duress. But, inasmuch as the institution of criminal proceedings usually involves the arrest of the alleged criminal, the weight of modern authority seems to be that such imprisonment is sufficiently immediate to constitute duress;9 although it is natural that, other things being equal, a possible but distant imprisonment should have less effect on the mind than immediate imprisonment.

1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 848, 45 L. R. A. 407, 79 N. W. 770; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 47 L. R. A. 417, 81 N. W. 495; Coon v. Metzler, 161 Wis. 328, L. R. A. 1916B, 667, 154 N. W. 377.

2 California. Morrill v. Nightingale, 93 Cal. 452, 27 Am. St. Rep. 207, 28 Pac. 1068.

Illinois. Bradley v. Irish, 42 III. App. 85; Green v. Moss, 65 111. App. 594.

Kansas. Winfield National Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 620, 26 Pac. 939.

Michigan. Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524, 57 N. W. 101.

Missouri. Wilkerson v. Hood, 65 Mo. App. 491.

Nebraska. Horton v. Bloedorn, 37 Neb. 666, 56 N. W. 321.

3 Bradley v. Irish, 42 111. App. 85.

4Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524, 57 N. W. 101.

5Illinois. Rendleman v. Rendleman, 156 111. 568, 41 N. E. 223; Youngs v. Simm, 41 111. App. 28.

Maine. Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227, 14 Am. Rep. 556; Thorn v. Pink-ham, 84 Me. 101, 30 Am. St. Rep. 335, 24 Atl. 718.

Massachusetts. Taylor v. Jacques, 106 Mass. 291.

Michigan. Beath v. Chapoton, 115 Mich. 506, 69 Am. St. Rep. 589, 73 N. W. 806.

Minnesota. Flanigan v. Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 406, 31 N. W. 359.

New Jersey. Bodine v. Morgan, 37 N. J. Eq. 426.

New York. Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N. Y. 224, 3 N. E. 76.

Pennsylvania. Phillips v. Henry, 160 Pa. St. 24, 40 Am. St. Rep. 706, 28 Atl. 477; Sulzner v. Cappeau-Lemley, etc., Co., 234 Pa. St. 162, 83 Atl. 103.

Washington. Ingebrigt v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co., 78 Wash. 433, 139 Pac. 188.

"Threats of criminal prosecution unaccompanied by threats of immediate imprisonment do not constitute duress." Beath v. Chapoton, 115 Mich. 506, 69 Am. St. Rep. 589, 73 N. W. 806.

6 Phillips v. Henry, 160 Pa. St. 24, 40 Am. St. Rep. 706, 28 Atl. 477.

7 Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 30 Am. St. Rep. 524, 57 N. W. 101.

8 Georgia. Russell v. McCarty, 45 Ga. 197 (apparently assumed as correct legal principle).

Maine. Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227, 14 Am. Rep. 556; Higgins v. Brown, 78 Me. 473, 5 Atl. 269; Hilborn v. Buck-nam, 78 Me. 482, 57 Am. Rep. 816, 7 Atl. 272.

Missouri. Buchanan v. Sahlein, 9 Mo. App. 552; Wilkerson v. Hood, 65 Mo. App. 491.

Nebraska. Sieber v. Weiden, 17 Neb. 582, 24 N. W. 215.

Pennsylvania. Sulzner v. Cappeau-Lemley & Miller Co., 234 Pa. St. 162, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 421, 83 Atl. 103.

Washington. Ingebrigt v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co., 78 Wash. 433, 139 Pac. 188.

A threat of imprisonment may operate as duress though it is not for a technical crime. Thus a statement by the court that a boy will be sent to the reformatory unless a bond is given for his support at an industrial home,10 or a threat of arrest for non-payment of a license fee,11 may cause duress. Some states confuse nomenclature by calling a threatened arrest a "menace" but not duress.12

If the law offers to a party the choice between imprisonment and some alternative, his election to take such alternative can not be set aside subsequently on the ground of duress.13 If the statute provides that a criminal prosecution for seduction may be stopped at any time by the marriage of the parties, the one against whom the warrant for seduction has been issued, and who stops such criminal prosecution by such marriage, can not have the marriage set aside subsequently on the ground of duress.14

If A proposes to commit a criminal act in the future, the threat of B to prosecute A for such criminal act when committed, is not duress;15 and A can not recover property, whether real or personal, which he has conveyed to B in order to induce B to refrain from such criminal prosecution.

9 See cases cited in the first note of this section.

10St. Thomas v. Yearsley, 22 Ont. App. 340.

11Chicago v. Sperbeck, 69 111. App. 562; Neumann v. La Crosse, 94 Wis. 103, 68 N. W. 654.

12 Morrill v. Nightingale, 93 Cal. 452, 27 Am. St. Rep. 207, 28 Pac. 1068.

13Griffin v. Griffin, 130 Ga. 527, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 937, 61 S. E. 16.

14 Alabama. Williams v. State, 44 Ala. 24.

Arkansas. Marvin v. Marvin, 52

Ark. 425, 20 Am. St. Rep. 191, 12 S. W. 875.

Georgia. Griffin v. Griffin, 130 Ga. 527, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 937, 61 S. E. 16.

Louisiana. Lacoste v. Guidroz, 47 La. Ann. 295, 16 So. 836.

New Jersey. Sickles v. Carson, 26 N. J. Eq. 440.

Texas. Johns v. Johns, 44 Tex. 40.

Contra, Smith v. Smith, 51 Mich. 607, 17 N. W. 76; Shoro v. Shoro, 60 Vt. 268, 14 Atl. 177.

15 Edwards v. Boyle, 37 Okla, 639, 133 Pac. 233.