Case Name: AMI K. STRANG, Appellant, v. CATHARINE PETERSON and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05
Citations: 63 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMI K. STRANG, Appellant, v. CATHARINE PETERSON and Others, Respondents.
Judges: Barnard, P. J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 63
Pages: 418–422

Head Matter:
AMI K. STRANG, Appellant, v. CATHARINE PETERSON and Others, Respondents.
Duress — a security given, to a third party, in order to raise money with which to compound a crime under threat of the prosecution of ct son.
A payment made through fear of a criminal prosecution of a near relative is- made under duress.
A security, which is given by a mother to a third party to obtain money from him, with which to pay the amount due to the creditor of a son whose obligation to pay arose out of a forgery, and to prevent the criminal prosecution of the son, will be void. (Dykman, J., dissenting.)
Appeal by the plaintiff Ami K. Strang from a judgment, entered in the office of the cleric of Westchester county on the 16th day of September, 1889, dismissing the complaint, with costs.
The action was brdhght for the foreclosure of a bond and mortgage given by the defendant Catharine Peterson for the purpose of seeming the payment to Ami K. Strang, the plaintiff, of the sum of $961 and interest. The defendant Catharine Peterson was permitted by the referee, upon the trial of the action, to amend her answer setting up fraud and duress in the procurement of the bond and mortgage, and alleging that they wore obtained and executed under an agreement to suppress a criminal prosecution against her son.
The referee, before whom the action was tried, found, among other things, that Herman F. Peterson, who was a son of the defendant Catharine Peterson, the owner of the mortgaged premises, being indebted for the purchase of cattle, made his promissory notes, payable to the order of Ami TL Strang, and indorsed the same with the name of said Ami K. Strang, and delivered the said notes to Bonnett Miller and Edward B. Brady, respectively, to each of whom he was indebted, without the assent of the said Ami K. Strang, whose name upon said note was forged; that subsequently Strang consented to indorse the above-mentioned notes, provided he could be secured, and at the suggestion of some of the parties Strang called on the defendant Catharine Peterson to learn if she would give a bond and mortgage on her real estate to secure him, the said Strang, for his indorsement of said notes, which she was finally induced to do, and in consequence thereof the bond and mortgage in question was executed by her to the plaintiff, with the understanding that if she gave such bond and mortgage the parties interested in said forged notes would refrain from prosecuting her son criminally for such forgeries; but that if she did not give such bond and mortgage, her son would then be prosecuted.
Travis (& Smith, for the appellant.
Eugene B. Travis, for the respondent Catharine Peterson.
Elbert P. James, for the respondents Whitney and White.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.:
It is entirely clear that the motive impelling Mrs. Peterson to make the mortgage in suit was her belief that her son had been guilty of forgery and would be punished criminally if she did not secure the debt. The referee has found that the son was thus guilty, and that a prosecution therefor' was stopped by the giving of the mortgage. There is abundant evidence to sustain the referee's conclusion. It is now suggested by plaintiff that the referee was in error in this finding. That he should have given faith to the testimony that Peterson was authorized to place Strang's name on the note, in which case no crime had been committed and the course of justice was not interfered with by giving the mortgage. But such facts would not make the mortgage valid. Eadie v. Slimmon (26 N. Y., 9) is authority that fear of a prosecution of a near relative is such duress that a security obtained by means thereof cannot stand. Bayley v. Williams (4 Giff., 638; affirmed, Williams v. Bayley, 1 H. L. [Eng and Irish App.], 200), is to the same effect. (See, also, Pollock on Contracts, 557.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurred.