Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-14
Test: J. F. DEADERIoK, Clerk.

No. 1j5.
Pleasant Owens VS.. Clinton Mynstt and David
Owens.
DUREss-Ettaer and SOR-A note, executed BY
father as surety, and q son as principal. under
The influence OF threats, thst the son would be
taken of, and, as the parties reasonably appre.
hended, killed, is void for duress SIS TO both.
SASIE-PTincipdl and SuTety.-A note void for
duress to the principal is void to the surety.
Appeal from the Chancery Court at
Knoxville. The transcript does not show
what Chancellor rendered the decree.
J. r. Cooke for complainant.
IL L. Hall for defendants.
OPINION.
The decree of the Chancellor is erronc-
Gus. The complain ant filed his bill in
the Chancery Court st Knoxville, seeking
to eDjoin the collection of note for two
hundred dollars, executed by complainant
and defendant David Ovens in May, 1865,
and further seeking to have said note de-
clared void and delivered up. to be can
celled, alleging duress of both makers at
the time of the execution of the note.
The facts are that in May, 1866, and
on the night of the day on which David
Owens reached the house of complainant,
his father, on his return from the Confed-
crate Army, defendant, II. l.. G. MyDatt,
(called Clinton), in company with two of
his brothers, at late hour went to the
house of complainant and inquired for
David Owens, who was in bed up stairs,
or; as some of the witnesses expressed it,
in the loft. They entered the house with
pistols in their hands. Complainant was
also in bed. One of the party went into
his room: the other two went upstairs.
David Owens, finding out they were
there, and coming up with arms in their
hands, called to them to lay down their
arms and he would meet them friendly.
They told him they would not lay down
their arms. They went up to his room
with pistols; told him 10 get up or they
would make him; that they had settle
ment to make with him; that he had ia
ken two of Clinton's horses, and they
wanted pay for them; and if he didn't
pay for them they would take him off.
He told them he had not taken the horses
and knew nothing about them. They
continued, then, to threaten until he
agreed 10 give his note. The complainant,
to prevent their carrying his son off and
killing him, as he reasonably feared they
would, became security on the note to
Clinton. The Mynatts were at the
house Of complainant aggTavating their
outrage for several hours. David left the
next morning and has not returned.
The Chancellor held this conduct to be
no duress of the father, and intensified
the error of this holding by further de-
claring that the durcss of the son was no
defense for the father as security upon
the note of the same If this was so, the
payee could sue and recover from the
security, then the security might take his
judgment against the principal and thus
duress, however terrible, would be in the
end avoided as defense.
The proof shows the Mynatts to livein
sight of compliments house.
Complainant and his son were actually
imprisoned, and secured in that imprison-
ment by arms, exhibited by those men
whose conduct a. the time is most ruff at
like, and for purpose unlawful, if non
felOniOus.
There is evinced in the record q vile
ness of principle not only sufficient TO put
in fear the persons against whom it is i'm
mediately aimed, but of which the COM
munity in which it exists may entertain
well founded apprehensions. This con-
clusion is made msnlfestly correct by the
fact, that defendant Mynatt not only fails
to prove or even propose to prove, that
David Owen or any one else took his
horses, but strangely enough fails to
prove that he ever lost horse at all.
Reverse the decree, let the note be de-
ivered up and the injunction made per-
petual. TURNEY, Judge.
A true copy.
Test: J. F. DEADERIOK, Clerk.