Case Name: Ami K. Strang, App'lt, v. Catharine Peterson et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05-12
Citations: 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ami K. Strang, App’lt, v. Catharine Peterson et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 31
Pages: 462–465

Head Matter:
Ami K. Strang, App’lt, v. Catharine Peterson et al., Resp’ts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 12, 1890.)
Duress—Fear or prosecution op relative.
A security obtained through fear of prosecution ol a near relative, for crime, is void for duress, and the fact that no crime had actually been committed and the course of justice has not been interfered with by its execution will not make such security valid.
(Dykman, J., dissents .>
Appeal from judgment m iavor ot defendants, entered upon the report of a referee.
Action to foreclose a mortgage made by defendants, Catharine Peterson and Henry Peterson. By their amended answer they set up the defense of duress in its execution.
Prior to March 13, 1880, Herman F- Peterson, son of defendant Catharine, had endorsed plaintiff's name on several notes given for cattle purchased by said Herman F Peterson. He claimed to have done so by plaintiff’s authority, which plaintiff denied and claimed the endorsements were forgeries.
On that day the plaintiff, a justice of the peace, the plaintiff’s ' brother-in-law and a creditor of the plaintiff, four in all, came to defendant's house.
The plaintiff says to Catharine Peterson: “lam in great trouble with your son about using my name * * * he wanted to know if she could pay it * * * $700. * * * She said she could not * * * he told her then he would have to shut hiña up * * * plaintiff wanted a chattel mortgage on this property * ' * * she asked him what it was * * * he said it was a writing she must put her name to * * * she said she could not do such a thing without her husband knowing it * * •• plaintiff said it could be kept secret * * * he told her if she did not put her name to it * * * he ‘would shut him up.’ * * * ' Take him right away.’ *• * * She still said she did not want to do it * * * he then said 1 he must shut. him up (meaning her son),’ and as she says, ‘that was too much forme.’ She says she was frightened and excited and ‘to save her son from prison ’ she signed this bond and mortgage.”
Travis & Smith, for app’lt; Eugene B. Travis, for def’ts Peterson; Elbert P. James, for def’ts White and Whitney.

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 estopped 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, L. R., 1 H. L. Cases, 200, is to the same effect. See, also, Pollock on Contracts, 557.
Judgment affirmed, with costs,
Barnard, P. J., concurs.