Duress in the inducement exists where the party subjected to the duress knows the terms of the contract into which he is entering and intends such contract to take effect, but such intention is caused by duress. Duress of this sort makes contracts and conveyances executed thereunder voidable and not void.1 A contract induced by duress is sometimes said to be void;2 but as such form of statement is found where the party who was entitled to avoid it had done so, it probably means that such contract, while voidable originally, had been made void. However, under a statute which provides that "duress * * * by which the free will of the party is restrained and his consent induced will void the contract," it is said that a contract induced by duress is void.3

2 Patterson v. Gibson, 81 Ga. 802, 12 Am. St. Rep. 356, 10 S. E. 9; Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 90 Pa. St. 161.

3 This is the reason usually given, though why the surety could not have recourse over in such case is not clear, since one in whose favor a liability is created is usually not chargeable with duress exercised by a third person of which he is not informed. See Sec. 498.

4Singer Mfg. Co. v. Ferrell (Ky.), 48 S. W. 1078. (Where an unlawful promise to stifle prosecution was a consideration for the surety's signing.)

Wilkeraon v. Hood, 65 Mo. App. 491; Hyatt v. Robinson, 15 Ohio 372.

5United States v. Tingey, 30 U. S. (5 Pet.) 115, 8 L. ed. 66; Jones v. Turner, 15 Ky. (5 Litt.) 147.

1Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231; Southern Hardware & Supply Co. v. Lester, 166 Ala. 86, 52 So. 328; Palmer v. Poor, 121 Ind. 135, 6 L. R. A. 469, 22 N. E. 984.

2 Southern Hardware & Supply Co. v. Lester, 166 Ala. 86, 52 So. 328.

3 See Sec. 80.

Where such transactions are voidable, they may be made void at the election of the party subjected to duress.4 Deeds5 or mortgages 6 may be avoided for duress; but such formal conveyances can not be avoided informally by acts in pais. A formal decree of rescission must be obtained from a court of equity.7 This decree may be had in a foreclosure suit brought on the mortgage which was given under duress.8 Even if the instrument which is obtained by duress is under seal, so that the consideration can not be inquired into at law, equity will set aside such instrument if it conveys title to realty.9

1England. Plowden v. Marsham, Toth. 5.

Alabama. Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231.

Arkansas. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Fields, 134 Ark. 273, 203 S. W. 1030.

Colorado. Miller v. Davis' Estate, 52 Colo. 485, 122 Pac. 793.

Illinois. Eberstein v. Willets, 134 111. 101, 24 N. E. 967.

Louisiana. Harvin v. Blackman, 121 La. 431, 46 So. 525.

Michigan. Clement v. Buckley Mercantile Co., 172 Mich. 243, 137 N. W. 657.

Missouri. Bushnell v. Loomis, 234 Mo. 371, 137 S. W. 257.

Oklahoma. Enid Electric & Gas Co. v. Decker, 36 Okla. 367, 128 Pac. 708; Anderson v. Kelley, 57 Okla. 109, 156 Pac. 1167.

Oregon. Rostad v. Thorsen, 83 Or. 489, L. R. A. 1917D, 1170, 163 Pac. 423, 987.

Virginia. Harris v. Cary, 112 Va. 362, 71 S. E. 551.

Wisconsin. Galusha v. Sherman, 405 Wis. 263, 47 L. R. A. 417, 81 N. W. 495.

2Kaus v. Gracey, 162 la. 671, 144 N. W. 625.

3Whitt v. Blount, 124 Ga. 671, 53 S. E. 205.

4England. Plowden v. Marsham, Toth. 5.

Alabama. Royal v. Goss, 154 Ala. 117, 45 So. 231.

Arkansas. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Fields, 134 Ark. 273, 203 S. W. 1036.

California. Campbell v. Genshlea, - Cal. -, 180 Pac. 336.

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

Kansas. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 637, 100 Pac. 647.

West Virginia. Beamer v. Clayton, - W. Va. - , 96 S. E. 969. "* * * if agreement be compelled by threats it shall not bind * * * the contrary between lord and tenant." Plowden v. Marsham, Toth. 5.

5United States. Carter v. Couch, 84 Fed. 735, 28 C. C. A. 520.

Alabama. Gilley v. Denman, 185 Ala. 561, 64 So. 97.

California. Campbell v. Genshlea, - Cal. - , 180 Pac. 336.

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

Illinois. Eberstein v. Willets, 134 111. 101, 24 N. E. 967; Kronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1182, 101 N. E. 935.

Massachusetts. Hoag v. Hoag, 210 Mass. 94, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 329, 96 N. E. 49.

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

Missouri. Graves v. Graves, 255 Mo. 468, 164 S. W. 496.

An executory contract,10 such as a promissory note,11 a contract to surrender a child,12 a special contract limiting the liability of a common carrier,13 or a contract to ship cattle,14 may be avoided for duress in pais without formal rescission in equity.

Ohio. Commercial National Bank v. Wheelock, 52 0. S. 534; 49 Am. St. Rep. 738, 40 N. E. 636.

Oklahoma. Harris-Lipsitz Co. v. Oldham, 5G Okla. 124, 155 Pac. 865.

Oregon. Rostad v. Thorsen, 83 Or. 489, L. R. A. 1917D, 1170, 163 Pac. 423, 987.

Texas. Hardin v. Hardin, 38 Tex. 616.

West Virginia. Beamer v. Clayton, - W. Va. - , 96 S. E. 969.

6 Illinois. Mayer v. Oldham, 32 111. App. 233; Bradley v. Irish, 42 111. App. 85.

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

Michigan. Bentley v. Robson, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146.

Nebraska. Beindorff v. Kaufman, 41 Neb. 824, 25 L. R. A. 679, 60 N. W. 101; Hoellworth v. McCarthy, 93 Neb. 246, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 140 N. W. 141.

Ohio. James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio 548; Western Ave. Bldg. Association v. Walters, 7 Ohio C. C. 202.

7Nordholt v. Nordholt, 87 Cal. 552, 22 Am. St. Rep. 268, 26 Pac. 599; Bradley v. Irish, 42 111. App. 85; Simmons v. Kelsey, 76 Neb. 124, 107 N. W. 122; (Commercial National) Bank v. Wheelock, 52 O. S. 534, 49 Am. St. Rep. 738, 40 N. E. 636; Western Ave. Bldg. Association v. Walters, 7 Ohio C. C. 202.

8Hoellworth v. McCarthy, 93 Neb. 246, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 140 N. W. 141.

9Kronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1182, 101 N. E. 935.

10 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.

Kansas. Thompson v. Niggley, 53 Kan. 664, 26 L. R. A. 803, 35 Pac. 290; Heaton v. Bank, 59 Kan. 281, 52 Pac. 876.

Louisiana. Bryant v. Levy, 52 La. Ann. 1649, 28 So. 191.

Massachusetts. Fairbanks v. Snow, 145 Mass. 153, 1 Am. St. Rep. 446, 13 N. E. 596.

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

Ohio. Ins. Co. v. Hull, 51 O. S. 270, 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; Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 704.

Wisconsin. Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis. 1, 76 Am. St. Rep. 848, 45 L. R. A. 407, 79 N. W. 770.

11 Illinois. Overstreet v. Dunlap, 56 111. App. 486.

Kansas. Heaton v. Bank, 59 Kan. 281, 52 Pac. 876.

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

Ohio. James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio 548.

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.

12 Hunt v. Hunt, 94 Ga. 257, 31 S. B. 515.

A release given under duress may be avoided informally, and suit may be brought on the original cause of action.15 If the instrument is negotiable,16 equity may grant a formal rescission.

An executed contract whereby the title to personal property has passed may be avoided informally.17 An assignment of a life insurance policy may be avoided informally,18 as by an action at law to recover the policy from the assignee.19 An assignment of personalty obtained by duress may be avoided and trover may be brought against the assignee.20 A specific existing chattel parted with by sale under duress may on informal rescission be seized by the vendor, and such recaption is not larceny.21 In case of certain formal transfers of personal property, such as stocks,22 formal rescission may be had in equity.

An executed conveyance of realty can not be avoided by acts in pais followed by an ejectment suit. A suit in equity is necessary.23

If A has been coerced by duress into marrying B, B is not A's "widow" within the meaning of such provision in an insurance policy.24

The party who is subjected to the duress can not rescind a part of the transaction which is thus induced and affirm the rest of such transaction. If he wishes to rescind, he must rescind the entire transaction.25

13 St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 637, 100 Pac. 647.

14 Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.),33 S. W. 704.

15Weiser v. Welch, 112 Mich. 134, 70 N. W. 438; (Springfield, etc.,) Ins. Co. v. Hull, 51 O. S. 270, 46 Am. St. Rep. 571, 25 L. R. A. 37, 37 N. E. 1116; Lyons v. Davy-Pocahontas Coal Co., 75 W. Va. 739, 84 S. E. 744.

Duress of the debtor was held to be a good defense in an action of debt on an account. Earl of Northumberland v. , 1 Leon. 13.

16 James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio 548.

17Kaus v. Gracey, 162 la. 671, 144 N. W. 625; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9, 82 Am. Dec. 395; Doolittle v. McCul-lough, 7 O. S. 299.

18Kaus v. Gracey, 162 la. 671, 144 N. W. 625; Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9, 82 Am. Dec. 395.

19Kaus v. Gracey, 162 la. 671, 144 N. W. 625.

20 Doolittle v. McCullough, 7 O. S. 299.

21Love v. State, 78 Ga. 66, 6 Am. St. Rep. 234, 3 S. E. 893.

22 Bryant v. Peck, etc., Co., 154 Mass. 460, 28 N. E. 678.

23(Commercial National) Bank v. Wheelock, 52 O. S. 534, 49 Am. St. Rep. 738, 40 N. E. 636.

24 Grand Lodge Colored Knights v. Smith, 89 Miss. 718, 119 Am. St. Rep. 719, 42 So. 89.

25Wood v. Kansas City Home Telephone Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S. W. 6; Johnson v. Johnson, 206 N. Y. 561, 100 N. E. 406.

Sec. 505. Duty of placing adversary party in statu qua On avoiding a contract for duress, it is necessary to return what was received under the contract thus avoided.1 But where a wife gave a note and mortgage under duress to prevent the prosecution of her husband for forging collateral to a note given by him, and such note and collateral are returned to the wife to be delivered to her husband, which is done, she may avoid her note and mortgage without returning his notes and collateral; her husband being dead and the notes and collateral missing.2 If the thing received by the party subjected to duress is worthless, it is not necessary to restore it before bringing action. It is sufficient to restore it at the trial.3 If the thing which is received by the party who is subjected to duress is without value, it is not error for the court to rescind the transaction without requiring the redelivery of such worthless thing as a condition precedent.4 If the party subjected to duress has on his own theory of the case a right to all that he has received under the contract and more; while under the adversary party's theory of the case, he has a right to what he has received, he is not obliged to tender it on disaffirming. Thus A had a claim against an insurance company which under threat of criminal prosecution she settled for a much smaller sum. It was held that she could disaffirm and sue for the difference between the amount due and the amount received; and that she need not return the amount received before bringing suit.5