Bryant v. Peck & Whipple Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1891
• Citation: 28 N.E. 678,154 Mass. 460
• Parties: BRYANT v. PECK & WHIPPLE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

154 Mass. 460

28 N.E. 678

BRYANT v. PECK & WHIPPLE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 24, 1891

COUNSEL

Bassett & Keating, for appellant.

Geo. M. Stearns, for appellee.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

According to the allegations of the bill the plaintiff became a party to the note from which he prays to be relieved and transferred his stock in consideration that the defendant would not prosecute his son for perjury, and under a threat from it that otherwise his son would be prosecuted. The transaction was illegal, (Pub.St. c. 205, § 27; Gorham v. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583,) and if the parties stood on an equal footing neither of them would have a remedy against the other, (Atwood v. Fisk, 101 Mass. 363.) But it is well recognized that although both parties are chargeable with knowledge that their agreement is contrary to some rule of law, yet, if one of them acts under duress, or what the law regards as undue influence on the part of the others, they do not stand on an equal footing, and the weaker one may be granted affirmative relief. Worcester v. Eaton, 11 Mass. 368, 376; Belding v. Smythe, 138 Mass. 530, 533. It is settled that such threats as are alleged to have been addressed to the plaintiff constitute duress. Harris v. Carmody, 131 Mass. 51. See Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164. And accordingly it has been decided in other jurisdictions in cases like the present that the plaintiff was entitled to relief in equity. Foley v. Greene, 14 R.I. 618; Schoener v. Lissauer, 107 N.Y. 111, 13 N.E. 741; Williams v. Bayley, L.R. 1 H.L. 200; Davies v. Insurance Co., 8 Ch.Div. 469, 477. See Sharon v. Gager, 46 Conn. 189; Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164, 167-169. In Atwood v. Fisk, cited as establishing a different conclusion, it seems to have been found or assumed that the plaintiffs had not been subjected to any undue pressure, as the decision states that there was "no such inequality in position or abuse of advantages as to entitle them to the aid of the court on the ground of public policy."

Demurrer overruled.