Whether duress exercised against the principal gives the surety an opportunity of avoiding the contract is a question upon which there is some conflict of authority. The view held by a majority of the courts is that the surety is bound though his principal executes the contract under duress, if the surety knows of such duress and is himself not under duress,1 while if the surety does not know of such duress he is not bound,2 since on suit by the creditor the principal could avoid the contract, leaving the surety bound and without recourse against the principal.3 Some courts hold in general terms that a surety is not bound if the principal signs under duress.4 It has also been held that a surety on a bond given without legal authority or in case of false imprisonment to obtain the principal's release, may plead such duress.5

16BeII v. Campbell, 123 Mo. 1, 45 Am. St. Rep. 505, 25 S. W. 359. (This is possibly a case of undue influence.) See to the same effect, Fountain v. Big-ham, 235 Pa. St. 35, 84 Atl. 131.

17 Nebraska Mutual Bond Ass'n v. Klee, 70 Neb. 383, 97 N. W. 476.

1Giddings v. Bank, 104 la. 676, 74 N. W. 21; Kaus v. Gracey, 162 la. 671, 144 N. W. 625; Bank v. Hutchinson, 62 Kan. 9, 61 Pac. 443; Price v. Bank, 144 Wis. 190, 128 N. W. 895.

2 Lewis v. Doyle, 182 Mich. 141, 148 N. W. 407.

1 See Sec. 4.

2Foote v. De Poy, 126 la. 366, 106 Am. St. Rep. 365, 68 L. R. A. 302, 102 N. W. 112.

3 See Sec. 507.

4 Oak v. Dustin, 79 Me. 23, 1 Am. St. Rep. 281, 7 Atl. 815.

5Lewis v. Banning, 82 Mass. (16 Gray) 500.

1 Graham v. Marks, 98 Ga. 67, 25 S. E. 931; Tucker v. State, 72 Ind. 242; Oak v. Dustin, 79 Me. 23, 1 Am. St. Rep. 281, 7 Atl. 815; Robinson v. Gould, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 55; Bowman v. Hiller, 130 Mass. 153, 39 Am. Rep. 442.