DU R ESS. Personal restraint, or fear of personal injury or imprisonment. Hazelrigg v. Donaldson, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 445.
Duress of imprisonment exists where a man actually loses his liberty. If, a man be illegally deprived of his liberty until he sign and seal a bond, or the like, he may al lege this duress and avoid the bond; Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583 ; Rollins v. Lashus, 74 Me. 218; Guilleaume v. Rowe, 94 N. Y. 268, 46 Am. Rep. 141. But if a, man be le gally imprisoned, and, either to procure his discharge, or on any other fair account, seal a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it; Co. 24 Inst. 482; Eddy v. Herrin, 17 Me. 338, 35 Am. Dec. 261; Mascolo v. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 23 Atl. 714, 29 Am. St. Rep. 170. Where the proceedings at law are a mere pretext, the instrument may be avoided; Aleyn 92; 1 Bla. Com. 136.
Duress per minas, which is either for fear of loss of life, or else for fear of mayhem or loss of limb, must be upon a sufficient reason; 1 Bla. Corn. 131. In this case, a man may avoid his own act. Coke enumer ates four instances in a man may avoid his own act by reason of menaces: For fear of loss of life; of member; of mayhem; of imprisonment; Co. 2d Inst. 483; 2 Rolle, Abr. 124; Bac. Abr. Duress, Murder, A; 2 Ld. Raym. 1578; Savigny, Dr. Rom. § 114; Motz v. Mitchell, 91 Pa. 114 ; Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 205, 19 L. Ed. 134.
It has been held that restraint of goods under circumstances of hardship will avoid a contract; Collins v. Westbury, 2 Bay (S. C.) 211, 1 Am. Dec. 643 ; Spaids v. Barrett, 57 III. 289, 11 Am. Rep. 10 ; Radich v. Hutch ins, 95 U. S. 210, 24 L. Ed. 409 ; 11 Exch. 878. But see Hazelrigg v. Donaldson, 2
Mete. (Ky.) 445 ; Maisonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 337, Fed. Cas. No. 8,978 ; Block v. U. S., 8 Ct. Cl. 461; Lehman v. Shackleford, 50 Ala. 437.
The duress to avoid a deed is that which' compels the grantor to do what he would not do voluntarily ; Savage v. Savage, 80 Me. 472, 15 Atl. 43 ; Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 569, 8 N. W. 511; Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 90 Pa. 161. If a contract is made under duress and subsequently ratified, it becomes valid; Ferrari v. Board of Health, 24 Fla. 390, 5 South. 1; Belote v. Henderson, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 471, 98 Am. Dec. 432.
The violence or threats must be such as are calculated to operate on a person of or dinary firmness and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation, or for tune. See Seymour v. Prescott, 69 Me. 376 ; McClair v. Wilson, 18 Colo. 82, 31 Pac. 502; Bosley v. Shanner, 26 Ark. 280 ; Mollere v. Harp, 36 La. Ann. 471. The resisting power which any man is bound to exercise for his own protection was measured, in the com mon law, by the standard of a man of cour age, as a part of the law itself; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 81 N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417. There is no legal standard of re sistance which a person acted upon must come up to at his peril of being remediless. The question in each case is: Was the person so acted upon by threats of the person claim ing the benefit of the contract, for the pur poses of obtaining it, as to be bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract, and was the contract thereby ob tained ; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263,