Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Ark. 280

Bosley v. Shanner

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 15, 1870

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1870-12-15

<p>Contracts — When void from threats or duress. — To render a contract void hecanse of threats or menaces, it is necessary that the threats and circumstances should he of a character to excite the reasonable apprehensions of a man or person of ordinary courage, and the promise, contract or statement, should he made under the influence of such threats or menace.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In order that a contract or statement shall be void, because of threats or menaces, it is necessary that the threats and circumstances should be of a character to excite the reasonable apprehensions of a man or person of ordinary courage, and the promise, contract or statement should be made under the influence of such threats or menace.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Fonville v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co., Gardner v. Ward

Relies on Burr v. Burton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1982

6 state decisions

20187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

G-eegu, J.

¶1The appellee brought assumpsit, in the Woodruff circuit court, against the appellant, for certain cotton, a hack and harness.

¶2Appellant appeared and filed three pleas; upon which issues were formed, a trial held, and a verdict and judgment for the appellee. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and the case appealed to this court.

¶3The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain a verdict lor the value of the cotton.

¶4The appellant complains that the court below instructed the jury, that, “In order that a contract or statement shall be void, because of threats or menaces, it is necessary that the threats and circumstances should be of a character to excite the reasonable apprehensions of a man or person of ordinary courage, Mid the promise, contract or statement should be made under the influence of such threats or menace.”

¶5This instruction was applicable, and by the authority appellant refers to: Burr v. Burnett, 18 Ark. 214, and cases there cited — it is substantially correct. The evidence in the court below authorized the various instructions, finding and judgment there had, and there appears but slight ground for an appeal to this court.

¶6The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/26/ark/280 · .json · Public domain