The commencement of an action, as will be seen in the next chapter (post, Sec. 228), does not constitute duress. A fortiori, a threat of civil process is not duress and money paid or other benefits conferred because of such a threat may not be recovered.6

1 Cadaval v. Collins, 1836, 4 Ad. & E. 858; Foss v. Whitehouse, 1901, 94 Me. 491; 48 Atl. 109; Cribbs p. Sowle, 1891, 87 Mich. 340; 49 N. W. 587; 24 Am. St. Rep. 166; Fossett v. Wilson, 1881, 59 Miss. 1; Adams v. Irving Nat. Bank, 1889,116 N. Y. 606; 23 N. E. 7; 6 L. R. A. 491; 15 Am. St. Rep. 447; Landa p. Obert, 1890, 78 Tex. 33; 14 S. W. 297.

2 See Plant p. Gunn, 1874, 2 Woods (U. S. C. C.) 372; Fed. Cas., No. 11,205; Hatter v. Greenlee, 1834, 1 Port. (Ala.) 222; 26 Am. Dee. 370; Bailey p. Devine, 1905, 123 Ga. 653; 51 S. E. 603; 107 Am. St. Rep. 153; McCormick, etc., Co. p. Miller, 1898, 54 Neb. 644; 74 N. W. 1061; Dunham p. Griswold, 1885, 100 N. Y. 224; 3 N. E. 76.

3 Williams v. Bayley, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 200; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 1896, 111 Ala. 456; 20 So. 651; Morrill v. Nightingale, 1892, 93 Cal. 452; 28 Pac. 1068; 27 Am. St. Rep. 207 ; Burton v. McMillan, 1907, 52 Fla. 469; 42 So. 849; 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 990; 120 Am. St. Rep. 220; Morse v. Woodworth, 1892, 155 Mass. 233; 27 N. E. 1010; 29 N. E. 525; Hensinger p. Dyer, 1898, 147 Mo. 219; 48 S. W. 912; Richardson v. Duncan, 1826, 3 N. H. 508; Ball p. Ward, 1909, 76 N. J. Eq. 8; 74 Atl. 158; Adams p. Irving Nat. Bank, 1889, 116 N. Y. 606; 23 N. E. 7; 6 L. R. A. 491; 15 Am. St. Rep. 447; Phelps & Johnsons Zuschlag, 1870-71,34 Tex. 371; Gorringe v. Reed, 1901, 23 Utah 120; 63 Pac. 902 ; 90 Am. St. Rep. 692.

4 Morse v. Woodworth, 1892, 155 Mass. 233; 27 N. E. 1010; 29 N. E. 525; Richardson v. Duncan, 1826, 3 N. H. 508. And see Heck-man v. Swartz, 1885, 64 Wis. 48; 24 N. W. 473.

5 Vick v. Shinn, 1887, 49 Ark. 70; 4 S. W. 60; 4 Am. St. Rep. 26, (threat to take possession of property under a mortgage and sell the same); Holt v. Thomas, 1894,105 Cal. 273; 38 Pac. 891, (threat of suit); Paulson v. Barger, 1906, 132 la. 547; 109 N. W. 1081, (threat to foreclose landlord's lien); Parker p. Lancaster, 1892, 84 Me. 512; 24 Atl. 952, (threat of suit); Emmons p. Scudder, 1874, 115 Mass. 367, (threat of ejectment); Weber p. Kirkendall, 1895, 44 Neb. 766; 63 N. W. 35,

While a threat of imprisonment may constitute duress (ante, Sec. 214), a threat of criminal prosecution, when no warrant has been issued and there is no immediate danger of arrest, is not enough to make a payment obtained thereby recoverable.1 In a series of English cases, however, it has been held that if the sanitary authorities of a district, having the power to impose penalties by summary proceedings, notify a person to abate a nuisance which, under the law, the authorities themselves and not the, person notified ought to abate, and the person so notified abates the nuisance in pursuance of the notice, he may recover the cost of the work done as money paid under compulsion.2 The analogy to cases of taxes and assessments collectible by summary process is obvious (post, Sec. 237 et seq.).