Case Name: Strang v. Peterson et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05-12
Citations: 10 N.Y.S. 139
Docket Number: 
Parties: Strang v. Peterson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 10
Pages: 139–141

Head Matter:
Strang v. Peterson et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 12, 1890.)
Duress—Threat or Prosecution at Law.
A mortgage procured from a mother in the belief that her son had been guilty of forgery, and would he prosecuted unless she secured the debt, is executed under duress. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by Ami K. Strang against Catharine Peterson and Henry Peterson, her husband, and Isabella Whitney and Constant White as administrators of Seth Whitney, deceased, to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendants Peterson. The issues were referred, and the referee reported in favor of defendants, finding that the only consideration for the mortgage was to save the mortgagor’s son from a prosecution for forgery in using plaintiff’s name as indorser on certain notes, and ordered a dismissal of the complaint. From the judgment thereupon entered, plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
Travis (6 Smith, for appellant. Eugene B. Travis, for respondents Peterson. Elbert P. James, for respondents Whitney’s administrators.

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. 200, is to the same effect. See, also, Pol. Cont. 557. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., concurs.