Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 N.C. 369

67 S.E 913

Smithwick v. . Whitley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 20, 1910

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1910-04-20

plaintiff’s appeal. Appeal from Ward, J., at December Term, 1909, of Beau-eobt. Civil actio'll to recover $280 alleged to have been paid under duress. The facts are as follows: On 3 December, 1900, plaintiff made a contract with defendants to purchase a piece of land containing 13 82-100 acres, for $483.72, and to give in payment ten notes of $46.99 each, one to be paid annually, secured by mortgage on land, and the balance in cash.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Duress exists where one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Luff v. . Levey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2003

9 state decisions

501910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BeowN, J.

¶1 We agree with his Honor, that the cause of action, npon plaintiff’s own evidence, is barred by the statute of limitations, assuming that a cause of action had been made out. But no cause of action for duress is made out in the evidence or stated in the complaint.

¶2*371 Tbe payment of tbe $280 in order to get a deed for tbe' land was yoluntary. Tbe plaintiff bad a right to stand on bis legal rights in tbe land, if be bad any, and assert bis equities in tbe courts of tbe State.

¶3 Duress exists where one, by tbe unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of tbe exercise of free will. 14 Oyc., 1123, and cases cited. Bank v. Logan, 99 Ga., 291; Mathews v. Smith, 67 N. C., 374; Miller v. Miller, 68 Pa. St., 486.

¶4 Duress is commonly said to be of tbe person where it is manifested by imprisonment, or by threats, or by an exhibition of force which apparently cannot be resisted. Or it may be of tbe goods, when one is obliged to submit to- an illegal exaction in order to obtain possession of bis goods and chattels from one who has wrongfully taken them into possession. Astley v. Reynolds, 2 Strange, 915, is a leading flase on this, subject. Hackley v. Hackley, 45 Mich., 573.

¶5 There is neither duress of tbe person nor goods there. Tbe plaintiff was in actual possession of tbe land and tbe defendant denied bis title, claiming that tbe “deal bad not been consummated.” In order to get a deed, plaintiff acceded to defendant’s demand and paid tbe advanced price. Upon all tbe authorities it was a voluntary payment, an adjustment of tbe dispute.

¶6 No error.

/152/nc/369 · .json · Public domain