Hilborn v. Bucknam

• Citation: 7 A. 272,78 Me. 482
• Parties: HILBORN v. BUCKNAM and another.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1886
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

7 A. 272

78 Me. 482

HILBORN

v. BUCKNAM and another.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

December 9, 1886.

On motion for new trial by defendants from supreme judicial court, Androscoggin county.

Action of assumpsit to recover money alleged to have been paid to the defendant under duress. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.

Dana & Estey and Savage & Oakes, for plaintiff.

J. N. Libby and J. P. Swasey, for defendants.

WALTON, J. The plaintiff claims that the defendants obtained $1,075 from him by duress, and he has recovered a verdict for that amount, with interest. The only question we find it necessary to consider is whether this verdict is not so clearly against the weight of evidence as to make it the duty of the court to set it aside and grant a new trial. We think it is. In the opinion of the court, the evidence falls very far short of establishing duress. The case shows that the defendants had lost large quantities of meal from their mill, and that, with the aid of a detective, they had obtained such proof as satisfied them that the plaintiff, in collusion with the miller, had taken much, if not the whole, of it. The plaintiff did not deny that he had taken a portion of the missing meal, but denied that he had taken so large a quantity as the defendants claimed to have lost. The defendants claimed that, by a comparison of the amount of corn delivered at the mill with the amount of meal returned to them, after making a proper allowance for shrinkage in grinding, it appeared that in three years and a half they had lost not less than 2,300 bushels, and they estimated their pecuniary loss, including the expenses of the investigation, at $2,000. After a negotiation which lasted the greater part of two days, the defendants finally consented to make a discount of $500, and to take security from the miller for $425, leaving $1,075 for the plaintiff to pay. To this the plaintiff assented, and the matter was so compromised and settled.

The plaintiff now claims that this settlement was obtained by duress, and that he is entitled to recover back the money paid by him on that ground. In the opinion of the court, as already stated, the evidence falls very far short of establishing duress. The plaintiff was at no time arrested. He was not, in express terms, threatened with arrest. It may be true, as contended by his counsel, that he was made to believe that he would be arrested if he did not settle, but no direct threats of arrest were made. But suppose such threats had been made; suppose that, instead of leaving it to...