Case ID: scl_1/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pendleton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Evans against Huey and Franklin.
    Where plaintiff and defendant had a previous quarrel, the plaintiff’s going to defendant’s house after-wards, in the. night, with au armed party, and proposing a settlement of the difference, (though no actual threats were made use of, and a note given in consequence of this proposal, with security) yet this shall constitute a duress^ hotli as to the principal and his security.
    
    CASE on a note of hand. Duress pleaded. The witnesses proved, that some time previous to the date of this note, Evans and Huey had a quarrel, on which Huey stabbed Evans with a knife in several places ; and although none of the wounds proved mortal, yet they disabled Evans for several weeks. That some time after Evans recovered, he went with a party of men armed, in quest of some horse thieves, who were supposed to be in the neighbourhood. That while they were out, they stopped at Huey’s house at a late hour of the night, and insisted upon his getting up and opening his doors ; which was done, with some reluctance. When they got admittance into the house, it was proposed to Hvey that he should accommodate the difference with Evans that night, by giving his note for 28/. sterling. A conversation then took place between the parties, and Huey at length agreeing to the proposal, gave his note accordingly. Evans and the party staid till morning, when they all went to the house of Franklin, the other defendant, at a mile’s distance ; who being Huey’s neighbour, signed the note, and became his security for the money. This was, therefore, a suit to recover the amount of the note given under these circumstances.
    Pinckney, for defendant,
    argued, that this was such a duress as would vitiate the contract. That an anned party going in the dead of night to a man’s house, demanding an accommodation of this kind, and especially as Evans was much enraged against him, was sufficient to awaken his fears, and terrify him into any contract; and, therefore, it was not of that free and voluntary nature, as deserved the sanction of a couu of justice.
    Pringle, for plaintiff,
    contended, that in this case no force was made use of, or threats thrown out to alarm the defendant, Huey. That Evans was free to propose, and the defendant equally so, to assent to or refuse the proposal, as he thought'proper. That he had received an injury by the stabbing, and was certainly entitled to a compensation. If the parties preferred to accommodate their difference in this manner, without the expense of a law-suit, it did not amount to a duress, either for fear of life, imprisonment, .or even loss of goods ; and, therefore, it was such a contract as deserved the support of the law in its favour. That at all events, even if it could be objectionable as to Huey, it was not so as to Franklin, the other defendant; for he signed it voluntarily in the morning, when he could be under no restraint or apprehension ; and as the note was joint and several, the plaintiff was entitled to a recovery against him.
   Pendleton, J.

charged the jury, drat no evidence was before them to prove, that actual threats were made use of x yet, the circumstance of the plaintiff’s demanding entrance, and coming into the defendant’s house with an armed party, and that, too, not long after he had received an injury from Huey, who must have been aware of the plaintiff’s indulging a resentment against him ;' this circumstance, he said, was sufficient to have awakened any man’s apprehensions, who might be placed in a similar situation. He thought, therefore, that any note or bond given, or contract made, when one of the contracting parties must evidently have been under these apprehensions, did not deserve the countenance of a court and jury. As to the liability of the other defendant Franklin, who signed as security for his neighbour Huey, under an idea that the contract was a validi one, if it was void against Huey, it was void against Franklin also.

Jury found for defendants.