Clark v. Pease
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This is an action of assumpsit counting upon the promissory note of the three defendants, dated July 26, 1858, for ¡1112.50, payable to one Theodore P. Clark, or order, on the first day of the following November, and by the payee indorsed and delivered, on the day of its date, to the plaintiff. There was also a count for money had and received, to the amount of $300. Plea, the general issue.
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit counting upon the promissory note of the three defendants, dated July 26, 1858, for ¡1112.50, payable to one Theodore P. Clark, or order, on the first day of the following November, and by the payee indorsed and delivered, on the day of its date, to the plaintiff. There was also a count for money had and received, to the amount of $300. Plea, the general issue. The defendants offered to prove that on the day before the giving of the note, all of the makers except Charles Pease were arrested at Ellsworth, in Grafton county, by Calvin Clark, a deputy sheriff, by…
1Opinion of the CourtSaegbNt, J.
That the case presented is clearly one of duress, there can be no question. The abuse of any process, either civil or criminal, to compel a party, by imprisonment, to do any act against his will except to pay the debt for which he is arrested, is entirely illegal, and the act .may be avoided on the ground of duress. Richardson v. Duncan, 3 N. H. 508; Severance v. Kimball, 8 N. H. 386; Shaw v. Spooner, 9 N. H. 197 ; Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 523; Breck v. Blanchard, 22 N. H. 303. Here the arrest was without any warrant or lawful authority. Such duress is a perfect defence, upon all the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Vallett v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Woodhull v. HolmesNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Small v. SmithCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Knight v. PughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- St. Albans Bank v. DillonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- The Eliza LinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895