Breach of contract is usually not duress.1 Fear that the adversary party will not perform an existing contract is not duress.2 Thus refusal to perform a contract for delivering ice unless a higher rate were paid, where the party who promised such higher rate did so because he would be subjected to great loss unless he got the ice;3 or to perform a contract for work and labor;4 or to sell out an interest in a partnership contrary to the partnership agreement;5 or mere refusal to pay a debt when due,6 is not ordinarily duress, as where A refuses to pay B for work unless B will gratuitously repair injuries to such work done by C, and B does such work, agreeing not to charge therefor;7 or where a debtor refuses to pay money which he admits that he owes, unless he receives a receipt of a specified form;8 or where a creditor takes eight thousand, five hundred dollars for a claim of ten thousand dollars and assigns the latter to his debtor's executor, fearing that such executor would defeat payment of such claim or would put the creditor to expense to collect it;9 or where the debtor has transferred his property and has become insolvent;10 or where government officers withhold money due for the use of a barge to compel the owner to charter it at a lower rate.11 If A has constructed a boat for B under a contract, and refuses to surrender possession of such boat unless B pays an excessive charge for extras, and B will suffer great financial loss if such boat is not delivered immediately, it is, nevertheless, held, that B is not acting under duress in giving a check for the full amount of such extras.12 The refusal of a vendor to convey land to a vendee in possession, under a contract, has been said not to be duress.13 A threat of wrongful interference with a contract may amount to duress.14

26Joannin v. Ogilvie, 49 Minn. 564, 32 Am. St. Rep. 581, 16 L. R. A. 376, 52 N. W. 217.

27 Weber v. Kirkendahl, 39 Neb. 193, 57 N. W. 1026.

1 United States. Silliman v. United States, 101 U. S. 465, 25 L. ed. 987; Domenico v. Packer's Association, 112 Fed. 554.

California. Taylor v. Ford, 131 Cal. 440, 63 Pac. 770.

Missouri. Wood v. Kansas City Home Telephone Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S. W. 6.

New York. Secor v. Clark, 117 N. Y. 350, 22 N. E. 734, 1133; Doyle v. Rector, 133 N. Y. 372, 31 N. E. 221.

Rhode Island. Earle v. Berry, 27 R. I. 221, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 867, 61 Atl. 671.

Texas. Alexander v. Commission Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 182.

2 Dickson v. Fowler, 114 Md. 344, 79 Atl. 519.

3 Goebel v. Linn, 47 Mich. 489, 41 Am. Rep. 723, 11 N. W. 284.

4 Domenico v. Packer's Association, 112 Fed. 554.

5 Taylor v. Ford, 131 Cal. 440, 63 Pac. 770.

6 United States. Silliman v. United States, 101 U. S. 465, 25 L. ed. 987.

Michigan. Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 560, 8 N. W. 511.

Minnesota. Cable v. Foley, 45 Minn. 421, 47 N. W. 1135.

New York. Doyle v. Rector, 133 N. Y. 372, 31 N. E. 221.

Rhode Island. Earle v. Berry, 27 R. I. 221, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 867, 61 Atl. 671.

7 Doyle v. Rector, 133 N. Y. 372, 31 N. E. 221.

8 Earle v. Berry, 27 R. I. 221, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 867, 61 Atl. 671.

9Secor v. Clark, 117 N. Y. 350, 22 N. E. 754, 1132.