Gunham v. Griswold

Citation3 N.E. 76,100 N.Y. 224
PartiesGUNHAM v. GRISWOLD.
Decision Date27 October 1885
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jacob A. Gross, for appellant, Edmund Griswold.

John H. Clapp, for respondent, Alfred F. Dunham.

EARL, J.

The plaintiff claimed that prior to September, 1881, he intrusted the defendant with certain securities which were to be converted into money and the proceeds invested for him, but that the defendant converted the proceeds to his own use; and he claimed that the defendant was indebted to him on account of such proceeds in the sum of $9,000; and to adjust the claim of the plaintiff, which we may assume the defendant disputed, he settled with the plaintiff, and an account was stated in which the defendant acknowledged that there was $9,000 due the plaintiff, and he executed a written agreement to pay the plaintiff that sum. This action was brought to recover the sum which was thus adjusted by the settlement and which the defendant thus agreed to pay. It was no defense to this action for the defendant to prove that he did not owe the plaintiff anything. The plaintiff having made a claim against him, and he having disputed it, and the parties having settled the dispute by agreeing upon the amount due in an account stated, which the defendant promised to pay, that promise is founded upon a sufficient consideration, and can be enforced against him although he might be able to prove that nothing was in fact due from him. Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt, 4 Denio, 189;Wehrum v. Kuhn, 61 N. Y. 623;Feeter v. Weber, 78 N. Y. 337. But the defendant further claims that he made the adjustment and promise and signed the agreement to pay the plaintiff under duress, and hence that he is not bound by the agreement. The facts as to the duress depend entirely upon the evidence of the defendant, and it was for the trial court, under all the circumstances of the case, to determine to what extent such evidence was entitled to credence. Upon the evidence it was a question of fact whether the agreement was executed in consequence of any duress whatever. The court could have found, and we may assume did find, that the only threats used, if any, were to arrest the defendant in a civil action for the wrong which he had done the plaintiff. The negotiations for the settlement were pending several days. The defendant was not under arrest or restrained of his liberty in any way. He appears to have been a business man, in the full possession of his faculties, and the plaintiff was an old man, his uncle. A mere threat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • The State v. Julow
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 18, 1895
    ...... doing of a lawful act. Davis v. Luster, 64 Mo. 43;. Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 569; Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N.Y. 224; Schneyder v. Braden, 58. Ind. 143; Wilcox v. Howland, 23 Pick. 167; Brown. v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205; 6 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of. ......
  • Link v. Aiple-Hemmelmann Real Estate Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 7, 1914
    ...... trust by the hand of their agent, Cooper. Brown v. Worthington, 162 Mo.App. 508; Pemberton v. Williams 87 Ill. 15; Dunham v. Griswold, 100. N.Y. 224; Adams v. Nat. Bank, 116 N.Y. 606;. Wooley v. Railroad (Wis.), 136 N.W. 616. It does not. define legal duress, nor does it tell the ......
  • Crookshanks v. Ransbarger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 20, 1917
    ...482, 7 Atl. 272, 57 Am. Rep. 816; Parker v. Lancaster, 84 Me. 512, 24 Atl. 952; Kreider v. Fanning, 74 Ill. App. 230; Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N. Y. 224, 3 N. E. 76; Bank v. Logan, 99 Ga. 291, 25 S. E. 692; Shelby v. Bowman, 64 Kan. 879, 68 Pac. 1131; Cohen v. Troy Mfg. Co., 99 Ga. 289, 25 S......
  • Steward v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 8, 1959
    ...709, 712, this court said: 'Generally, it is not duress to do or threaten to do what one has the legal right to do (Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N.Y. 224, 226, 3 N.E. 76; 30 East End, Inc. v. World Steel Products Corp., Sup., 110 N.Y.S.2d 754, 757; 17A Am.Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT