Higgins v. Brown
| Decision Date | 26 June 1886 |
| Citation | 78 Me. 473,5 A. 269 |
| Parties | HIGGINS v. BROWN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. From supreme judicial court, Hancock county.
Replevin of two horses, to which plaintiff claimed title by virtue of a mortgage bill of sale from the defendant. The defense was that the mortgage was procured through duress. The verdict was for the defendant.
Wiswell & King, for plaintiff.
John B. Redman, for defendant.
The evidence in this case is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. There is not any evidence of threats of impending danger or personal violence. The threats, as stated by the defendant himself, amounted to nothing more than that the plaintiff was going to commence criminal proceedings. These threats were not connected with any prosecution then pending. No warrant had been issued or proceedings commenced. Assuming the testimony of the defendant to be true, he does not exhibit such a state of affairs as would constitute duress according to the well-settled rules of law. Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 230.
Motion sustained. New trial granted.
1 Reported by Leslie C. Cornish, Esq., of the Augusta bar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security State Bank v. Rettinger
...real fear of immediate imprisonment. Moyer v. Dodson, 212 Pa. 344, 61 A. 937; Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227, 14 Am. Rep. 556; Higgins v. Brown, 78 Me. 473, 5 A. 269; Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me. 482, 57 Am. Rep. 816, A. 272; Sieber v. Weiden, 17 Neb. 582, 24 N.W. 215; Wilkerson v. Hood, 65 Mo.......
-
Bell v. Campbell
...begun, such fact would not have avoided plaintiff's contract. Buchanan v. Sohlein, 9 Mo.App. 552; Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227; Higgins v. Brown, 78 Me. 473. (5) The to rescind a contract on account of fraud or duress, must be exercised promptly on the discovery of the fraud or the removal ......
-
Galusha v. Sherman
...v. Simm, 41 Ill. App. 28; Harmon v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227; Morse v. Woodworth, 155 Mass. 233, 27 N. E. 1010, and 29 N. E. 525;Higgins v. Brown, 78 Me. 473, 5 Atl. 269;Wolfe v. Marshall, 52 Mo. 167; Burr v. Burton, 18 Ark. 214; Flanigan v. City of Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 406, 31 N. W. 359;Horton ......
-
A.H. Averill Machinery Co. v. Taylor
...case failed to make out the defense pleaded. This court did not announce either of the principles stated above, but it cited Higgins v. Brown, 78 Me. 473, 5 A. 269, Hilborn v. Bucknam, 78 Me. 482, 7 A. 272, 57 Am. Rep. 816, which apparently approve those principles. The references were unfo......