Where the promisor himself is subjected to duress of imprisonment,1 or to threats which can cause duress,2 such as threats of violence3 or of imprisonment,4

15Bryant v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649, 28 So. 197; Central Bank v. Copeland, 18 Md. 305, 81 Am. Dec. 597; Barry v. Assurance Society, 59 N. Y. 587; Magoon v. Reber, 76 Wis. 392, 45 N. W. 112.

16 Barry v. Assurance Society, 59 N. Y. 587. (The court said it was "analogous to a parting with property through robbery," and in substance held the assignment void, not voidable.)

While Gillespie v. Simpson (Ark.), 18 S. W. 1050, seems to recognize this doctrine, the case was in fact decided on the theory that no duress in fact existed, and that the contract was, furthermore, ratified.

17 Central Bank v. Copeland, 18 Md. 305, 81 Am. Dec. 597. (The court called such mortgage "void" saying, "Its execution was procured by the husband acting in their interest and for their benefit"; * * * "their acceptance of the mortgage implies an adoption of his agency.")

18Dimmitt v. Robbins, 74 Tex. 441. 12 S. W. 94.

19Dimmitt v. Robbins, 74 Tex. 441, 12 S. W. 94. (This proposition was laid down as the law of the case. The record showed (1) that it was doubtful what amount B loaned to A; and (2) that B was in collusion with the robbers. For these reasons it was held that B could not recover.)

1 Hunt v. Hunt, 94 Ga. 257, 21 S. E. 515.

2Overstreet v. Dunlap, 56 111. App. 486; Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont 372, 45 Pac. 560; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 47 L. R. A. 417, 81 N. W. 495.

3 Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 372, 45 Pac. 560; Doolittle v. McCullough, 7 O. S. 299.

4 Alabama. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 111 Ala. 456, 20 So. 651.

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

Michigan. Cribbs v. Sowle, 87 Mich. 340, 24 Am. St. Rep. 166, 49 N. W. 587.

duress, of course, may exist. Where the person against whom such threats and the like are directed is not the promisor, the general rule is that the promisor can not in law be said to be subject to duress.5 Exceptions to this last rule exist where the promisor occupies certain relations to the person against whom the threats, violence, and the like, are directed. Thus imprisonment6 or threatened criminal prosecution and imprisonment 7 of a husband may cause duress of the wife. The same rule was applied where a woman was induced by threats of arresting her intended husband,

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

Ohio. James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio 548; (Springfield, etc.) Ins. Co. v. Hull, 51 0. S. 270, 46 Am. St. Rep. 571, 25 L. R. A. 37, 37 N. E. 1116.

Texas. Landa v. Obert, 78 Tex. 33, 14 S. W. 297; Morrison v. Faulkner, 80 Tex. 128, 15 S. W. 797.

5Bowman v. Hiller, 130 Mass. 153, 39 Am. Rep. 442.

6 Mayer v. Oldham, 32 111. App. 233.

7 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, 20 Times L. R. 277.

Alabama. Holt v. Agnew, 67 Ala. 360.

Connecticut. McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221, 36 Am. Rep. 67.

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

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

Indiana. Brooks v. Berryhill, 20 Ind. 97; Line v. Blizzard, 70 Ind. 23.

Iowa. Green v. Scranage, 19 la. 461, 87 Am. Dec. 447; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rawson, 50 la. 634; First National Bank v. Bryan, 62 la. 42, 17 N. W. 165; Giddings v. Bank, 104 la. 676, 74 N. W. 21.

Kansas. Winfield National Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 620, 26 Pac. 939; Heaton v. Bank, 59 Kan. 281, 52 Pac. 876; same case, 5 Kan. App. 498, 47 Pac. 576.

Kentucky. Fears v. United Loan & Deposit Bank, 172 Ky. 255, 189 S. W. 226.

Massachusetts. Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164.

Michigan. Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524, 57 N. W. 101; Benedict v. Roome, 106 Mich. 378, 64 N. W. 193; Bentley v. Robson, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146; Lewis v. Doyle, 182 Mich. 141, 148 N. W. 407.

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

Nebraska. 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.

New Hampshire. Davis v. Smith, 68 N. H. 253, 73 Am. St. Rep. 584, 44 Atl. 384.

New York. Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. T. 9, 82 Am. Dec. 395; Adams v. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 15 Am. St. Rep. 447, 6 L. R. A. 491, 23 N. E. 7; Barrett v. Weber, 125 N. Y. 18, 25 N. E. 1068.

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].

South Carolina. Williams v. Walker, 18 S. Car. 577.

Wisconsin. City National Bank v. Kusworm, 88 Wis. 188, 43 Am. St. Rep. 880, 26 L. R. A. 48, 59 N. W. 564; Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 848, 45 L. R. A. 407, 79 N. W. 770.

made just before the marriage was to occur, to sign a promise to pay his debt.8 A threat of criminal prosecution and imprisonment of a child may amount to duress of his parents,9 whether guilty or not;10 and so may actual imprisonment and danger of promisor's children.11 Threats of imprisoning a grandson may amount to duress of his grandmother.12 A threat of criminal prosecution of the father may amount to duress of the son.13 A threat of criminal prosecution and imprisonment of a brother may amount to duress of his sister,14 or of his brother.15 Threatened prosecution and imprisonment of a son-in-law has been held to be ground in equity for avoiding notes and a deed of trust given by reason thereof to secure his debt.16 A threat of criminal prosecution of A's son-in-law may amount to duress of A, although A is not concerned about his son-in-law, but is rather about the disgrace which A's daughter would suffer if her husband were imprisoned in the penitentiary.17

8Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164.

9Arkansas. Shattuck v. Watson, 53 Ark. 147, 7 L. R. A. 531, 13 S. W. 516 (obiter).

Georgia. Southern Express Co. v. Duffey, 48 Ga. 358; Bailey v. Devine, 123 Ga. 633, 107 Am. St. Rep. 153, 51 S. E. 603.

Illinois. Youngs v. Simm, 41 111. App. 28.

Iowa. Peed v. McKee, 42 la. 689, 20 Am. Rep. 631.

Kansas. Williamson, Hal sell, Frazier Co. v. Ackerman, 77 Kan. 502, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 484, 94 Pac. 807.

Maine. Seymour v. Prescott, 69 Me. 376.

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

Massachusetts. Harris v. Cormody, 131 Mass. 51, 41 Am. Rep. 188; Bryant v. Peck, etc., Co., 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. E. 678.

Michigan. Meech v. Lee, 82 Mich. 274, 46 N. W. 383; Weiser v. Welch, 112 Mich. 134, 70 N. W. 438.

Nebraska. Beindorff v. Kaufman, 41 Neb. 824, 60 N. W. 101.

New Jersey. Ball v. Ward, 76 N. J. Eq. 8, 74 Atl. 158.

New York. Haynes v. Rudd, 102 N. Y. 372, 55 Am. Rep. 815, 7 N. E. 287; Schroener v. Lissauer, 107 N. Y. 111, 13 N. E. 741 [affirming 36 Hun 100].

Ohio. Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio 400, 22

Am. Dec. 759; Western Avenue Building Association v. Walters, 7 Ohio C. C. 202.

Oklahoma. Harris-Lipsitz Co. v. Oldham, 56 Okla. 124, loo Pac. 865.

Oregon. Kohler & Chase Co. v. Savage, 86 Or. 639, 167 Pac. 789.

Pennsylvania. National Bank v. Kirk, 90 Pa. St. 49; Swope v. Ins. Co., 93 Pa. St. 251; Avery v. Layton, 119 Pa. St. 604, 13 Atl. 528.

Rhode Island. Foley v. Greene, 14 R. I. 618, 51 Am. Rep. 419.

Tennessee. Coffman v. Lookout Bank, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 232, 40 Am. Rep. 31.

Wisconsin. Catlin v. Henton, 9 Wis. 476; Schultz v. Culbertson, 49 Wis. 122, 4 N. W. 1070; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hamilton, 73 Wis. 486, 41 N. W. 727.

10Williamson, Halsell, Frazier Co. v. Ackerman, 77 Kan. 502, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 484, 94 Pac. 807.

11 Bailey v. Devine, 123 Ga. 653, 107 Am. St. Rep. 153, 51 S. E. 603; Shirk v. Neible, 156 Ind. 66, 59 N. E. 281.

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

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

14 Kronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1182, 101 N. E. 935; Henry v. State Bank, 131 la. 97, 107 N. W. 1034.

15State, exrel., v. Hills, 94 O. S. 171, L. R. A. 1917B, 684, 113 N. E. 1045.