Legal Opinion · Dissent
Voorhees v. Nelson
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 3, 1916No. Docket No. 59Published
Error to Gratiot; Searl, J. Assumpsit by Peter R. Voorhees. against Clinton Nelson and others for the recovery of money paid under duress. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Nelson, who brings error.
1DissentOstrander, J.
The trial court advised the jury:
“You will readily see it all gets down to the question of whether Voorhees at the time he paid this money over was acting as a free moral agent. Did he have his will power and exercise it there? It is not sufficient for him to show to you that the threats were made; that alone is not enough. It is not enough for him to show that the threats were made and that he had some fear of arrest or some fears that the government would take some proceedings against him or investigate further. That is not sufficient. But in order to recover here, he must show to you that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Clement v. Buckley Mercantile Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Cribbs v. SowleMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Koons v. VauconsantMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Lewis v. DoyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Nelson v. Leszczynski-Clark Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913