Sec 150

It is no defence to a suit upon a contract that it was executed by the defendant for the purpose of compromising a civil suit threatened or impending, even though he was at the time under arrest.2 A party who has a just claim against another has a right to threaten the legal proceedings appropriate for the enforcement of such claim, and to withdraw such proceedings on obtaining satisfaction; and if no unfair advantage be taken, and no illegal pressure applied, the use of such process, no matter how severe, cannot constitute duress. So speak the Roman standards,3 and we have numerous authorities in our own law to the same effect.4 "Should the party choose to Nor fear of legal pro-procedure.

1 Silliman p. U. S., 101 U. S. 465.

2 Bac. Ab. Duress, B ; 1 Bl. Com. 131 ; Biffin v. Bignell, 7 H. & N. 877 ; Bates v. Butler, 46 Me. 387; Alexander v. Pierce, 10 N. H. 494; Robinson v. Gould, 11 Cush. 55 ; Stouffer p. Lat-sbaw, 2 Watts, 167 ; Brooks v. Barry-hill, 20 Ind. 97 ; Taylor v. Cottrell, 16 111. 93; Pluuimer v. People, 16 111. 358; Mayhew v. Ins. Co., 23 Mich. 105; Landa v. Obert, 45 Tex. 539. That a compromise of doubtful claims is a good consideration, see infra, sec 533.

3 L. 7, pr. D. quod metus causa (IV. 2); L. 13, sec 1, D. de injur. XLVII. 10.

4 Supra, sec 148; infra, sec 532 et seq.; make terms instead of pursuing his rights (at all events when there is nothing to prevent him from so doing), he cannot afterwards turn round and complain that the terms were forced on him."1 "If a man, supposing that he has cause of action against another, by lawful process cause him to be arrested and imprisoned (in a civil suit), and the defendant voluntarily execute a deed for his deliverance, he cannot avoid such deed by duress of imprisonment, although, in fact, the plaintiff had no cause of action."2 On the other hand, if the suit on which the arrest was made was without cause of action, and was fraudulently designed to extort, or was without lawful authority, a promise obtained by the pressure thus applied is invalid.3 This was held to be the case when a bond for the maintenance of a bastard child was given under the pressure of a procedure not authorized by law.4 And if an unjust claim be collected under stress of an arrest, the money can be afterwards recovered back.5 And a threat of illegal arrest or attachment is duress.6 Thus where a married woman, to save property owned by her from seizure on an execution issued against her husband, paid money to the officer levying the execution, it was held that she could recover back from the officer the money paid.7

1 Roll. Abr. 688; Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269 ; Eddy p. Herrin, 17 Me. 338; Smith v. Reedfield, 27 Me. 145; Crowell v. Gleason, 1 Fairf. 325; Bow-ker v. Lowell, 49 Me. 429 ; Watkins v. Baird, 6 Mass. 511 ; Wilcox v. How-land, 23 Pick. 167; Shephard v. Wat-rous, 3 Caines, 166 ; Harmony v. Bingham, 1 Duer, 229 ; Miller v. Miller, 68 Penn. St. 486; Waterman v. Barratt, 4 Harring. 311; Mayor v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 425 ; Rood v. Wins-low, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 68; Taylor v. Cottrell, 16 111. 93 ; Meek v. Atkinson, 1 Bailey, 84 ; Smith p. Atwood, 14 Ga. 402 ; Bingham v. Sessions, 6 Sm. & M. 13 ; Holmes v. Hill, 19 Mo. 159 ; see Felton v. Gregory, 130 Mass. 176.