International Harvester Co. v. Voboril
| Decision Date | 24 April 1911 |
| Docket Number | 3,449. |
| Citation | 187 F. 973 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER VO. v. VOBORIL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Lee Webster, for plaintiff in error.
Charles H. Slama, for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and RINER, District Judge.
In an action by the International Harvester Company against Anna Voboril upon promissory notes given for debts of her husband her defense was that her signature was obtained by duress through threats by representatives of the company that unless she signed, her husband would be arrested and imprisoned. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, which the plaintiff desires reviewed.
As to plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, it must be said there was sufficient proof of the threats for the consideration of the jury. It is not our province to weigh conflicting evidence, or to consider inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses. It is contended, however, that, even if the threats were made, they could not in law have caused duress, because defendant's husband had committed no offense, there was no officer present to make an arrest, and no warrant had been issued or proceeding commenced against him. The contention is untenable. Duress may be caused by threats of a criminal prosecution of a husband, wife, child, or other near relative of the person whose action is thereby controlled, though no crime has in fact been committed or prosecution begun. If the contracting party has been so put in fear as to be deprived of the free will power essential to contractual capacity, the transaction thereby induced may be avoided. A valid contract implies mutual voluntary assent of the parties; and if one of them overcomes the mind and will of the other by moral compulsion, and so obtains his concurrence, though the form and shell of a contract exist the very essence of it is wanting.
Susceptibility to coercive influence is not uniform, and, in determining the question of duress, sex, age, state of health, family conditions, etc., may be considered with the other circumstances. In the case at bar the plaintiff had no claim against the defendant. The debtor was her husband, who had failed in business. Primarily she was neither legally nor morally responsible. The representatives of the plaintiff sought to obtain her guaranty of his obligations and to bind her separate estate for their payment. She was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winget v. Rockwood
...but the ultimate fact in issue is whether such person was bereft of the free exercise of his will power. International Harvester Co. v. Voboril (C. C. A. 8) 187 F. 973; Lipman, Wolfe & Co. v. Phœnix Assur. Co. (C. C. A. 9) 258 F. 544; Adams v. Irving Natl. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 23 N. E. 7, 6......
-
Meyer v. Guardian Trust Co.
... ... overcome by the threats? This court held, in ... International Harvester Co. v. Voboril, 187 F. 973, ... 110 C.C.A. 311, that: ... 'Duress ... may be ... ...
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Cook
...is well stated in 41 C. J. 54. Duress was not established by the evidence. 13 C. J. 396; Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U.S. 210, 213; Int. Har. Co. v. Vovoril, 187 F. 973; Kline v. Kline, (Ariz.) 128 P. 805; Baldwin Savage, (Ore.) 159 P. 80; Van Alstine v. McAlden, 141 Ill. A. 27. The modern doctr......
-
Marshall v. Lovell
...Mail Steamship Co., 200 U. S. 488, 26 S. Ct. 327, 50 L. Ed. 569; Connolly v. Bouck et al. (C. C. A.) 174 F. 312; International Harvester Co. v. Voboril (C. C. A.) 187 F. 973; Meyer v. Guardian Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 296 F. 789, 35 A. L. R. 856; 13 C. J. p. 402; 9 R. C. L. p. 716, § We are sat......