On the other hand, the person subjected to duress may see fit to ratify the transaction, and may do so after having become competent to contract.1 Thus a deed given under duress may be ratified, as by a quitclaim,2 or by acquiescence for an unreasonable time after an opportunity to avoid the contract,3

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

Michigan. Farmers', etc., Bank v. Butler, 48 Mich. 192, 12 N. W. 36.

New Hampshire. Clark v. Pease, 41 N. H. 414.

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

3Rossiter v. Loeber, 18 Mont. 372, 45 Pac. 560.

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

5 Bazemore v. Freeman, 58 Ga. 276; Hall v. Patterson, 51 Pa. St. 289.

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

7 Brown v. Pierce, 74 U. S. (7 Wall) 205, 19 L. ed. 134.

1 United States. Carver v. United States, 111 U. S. 609, 28 L. ed. 540; Andrews v. Connolly, 145 Fed. 43; Connolly v. Bouck, 174 Fed. 312, 98 C. C. A. 184.

Arizona. Kline v. Kline, 14 Ariz. 369, 128 Pac. 805.

Arkansas. Gillespie v. Simpson, 18 S. W. 1050.

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

Delaware. Craig v. Ginn, 3 Penn. (Del.) 117, 53 L. R. A. 715, 48 Atl. 192.

Florida. Ferrari v. Board of Health, 24 Fla. 390, 5 So. 1.

Indiana. Walker v. Larkin, 127 Ind. 100, 26 N. E. 684.

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

Maine. Knowlton v. Ross, 114 Me. 18, 95 Atl. 281.

Missouri. Bushnell v. Loomis, 234 Mo. 371, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1029, 137 S. W. 257.

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

2Miller v. Lumber Co., 98 Mich. 163, 39 Am. St. Rep. 524, 57 N. W. 101; Guinn v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co., 63 Or. 368, 127 Pac. 987.

3Eberstein v. Willets, 134 111. 101, 24 N. E. 967; Schee v. McQuilken, 59 Ind. 269.

or by suing in tort to recover damages for the false imprisonment under which the deed was executed.4 An executory promise made under duress may be ratified after the duress has ceased to operate,5 as by express agreement to perform the contract,6 or by voluntary performance;7 as by making payments thereunder,8 or by acquiescence therein;9 as by accepting payment thereunder,10 or by offering to perform,11 even if such offer is made at the trial after an answer setting up duress has been filed.12

The act which is relied upon as ratification must be one which shows unequivocally that the party who was subjected to duress has determined, after he has become a free agent, to treat the transaction as valid.13 If a husband has compelled his wife to convey realty to him under duress, the fact that she subsequently lives with him does not of itself establish the fact that she ratifies such conveyance.14

To constitute ratification the acts done must be done by a party competent to contract. Acts done under duress do not validate an instrument given under duress.15 Thus a part payment made while the duress still is operating does not amount to a ratification.16 One who is compelled to accept a bill of lading by fear of serious injury to his cattle, which are already in cattle cars, unless they are transported promptly, can not be regarded as ratifying such contract by his acquiescence therein while the risk of such injury continues.17 An order of the court in which were pending the guardianship proceedings which were used as a means of coercion, by which order the settlement, which is thus compelled by duress, is approved, can not operate to ratify such settlement.18 In determining whether the party is guilty of laches in bringing a suit to set aside a conveyance made under duress, the time during which his mind was affected by such threats, will not be regarded.19 Ratification is a question of fact.20

4 Carter v. Couch, 84 Fed. 735, 28 C. C. A. 520.

5 Oregon Pacific Ry. Co. v. Forrest, 128 N. Y. 83, 28 N. E. 137; Belote v. Henderson, 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 471, 98 Am. Dec. 432.

6 Gillespie v. Simpson (Ark.), 18 S. W. 1050.

7 Teem v. Ellijay, 89 Ga. 154, 15 S. E. 33; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 637, 100 Pac. 647; Sanford v. Sorabor-ger, 26 Neb. 295, 41 N. W. 1102, s. c. 34 Neb. 498, 52 N. W. 368.

8Bushnell v. Loomis, 234 Mo. 371, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1029, 137 S. W. 257.

9Knowlton v. Ross, 114 Me. 18, 95 Atl. 281; Lyon v. Waldo, 36 Mich. 345.

10 Miller v. Davis' Estate, 52 Colo. 485, 122 Pac. 793; Knowlton v. Ross, 114 Me. 18, 95 Atl. 281.

11 Tulsa Rig, Reel & Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, - Okla. - , 166 Pac. 135.

12Tulsa Rig, Reel & Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, - Okla. - , 166 Pac. 135.

13 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 637, 100 Pac. 647; Hoag v. Hoag, 210 Mass. 94, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 329, 96 N. E. 49.

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

15 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gorman, 79 Kan. 643, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 637, 100 Pac. 647; Eureka Bank v. Bay, 90 Kan. 506, 135 Pac. 584; Bentley v. Robeon, 117 Mich. 691, 76 N. W. 146; Coon v. Metzler, 161 Wis. 328, L. R. A. 1916B, 667, 154 N. W. 377.

16Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164.

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