Koons v. Vauconsant

• Decision Date: 07 January 1902
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: KOONS et ux. v. VAUCONSANT.

88 N.W. 630

129 Mich. 260

KOONS et ux. v. VAUCONSANT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 7, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county, in chancery; George P Stone, Judge.

Suit by Solomon D. Koons and wife against Justina Vauconsant. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Spaulding Norton & Dooling, for appellant.

Henry E. Walbridge and Edwin H. Lyon, for appellees.

HOOKER, J.

The complainants pray a decree discharging a mortgage given by them under alleged duress. Their claim is that on January 2 1900, defendant's son and his lawyer called at the home of the complainants, and presented a note, which purported to bear the signature of their son, E. S. Koons, and his father Solomon Koons, one of the complainants, which note bore date November 27, 1896. Solomon stated to them that they had made such a note in 1892, but that he had not made a second note that his signature was not upon the note presented, nor had he ever authorized any one to sign his name to it. It is claimed that the lawyer said that their son, E. S. Koons must have signed it, and that, unless complainants gave a mortgage upon their farm to secure defendant, their son would be arrested. Complainants requested a little time to investigate, but this was denied, and the mortgage was made. A day or two later this bill was filed. The defendant's counsel question the accuracy of this statement, but do not deny that the first note was given, being dated in 1892, in payment for an interest in a stock of goods bought by the younger Koons from one Sullivan, who was payee in that note. It is not disputed that an interview was had and the mortgage made at the time and place alleged, but it is denied that it was obtained by threats of arrest or duress of any character. We are convinced that the $1,000 note originally given was never renewed by the complainant S.D. Koons, and that action upon it was barred by the statute of limitations before the mortgage in controversy was given. The note defendant's Exhibit A was the last of several consecutive renewals of that note, but complainant's name was written upon it by his son, without his authority. While this took the debt out of the statute as to the son, it could not have that effect upon the complainant, because he was not a party to the fraud upon the payee. He has done nothing that should estop him from pleading the statute, although his principal may have done so. Probate Judge v. Stevenson, 55 Mich. 320, 21 N.W. 348; Rogers v. Anderson, 40 Mich. 290; Sweet v. Ellis, 109 Mich. 460, 67 N.W. 535; Insurance Co. v. Elwell, 111 Mich. 689, 70 N.W. 334; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 309, and note; Id. (as to fraud of agent) p. 249, and note; Stevenson v. Robinson, 39 Mich. 160. Undoubtedly, a new promise made by the complainant would be valid, so far as consideration is concerned, because of his moral obligation, notwithstanding the lapse of more than six years. But he was under no legal obligation to renew his note, and certainly he was under no legal duty to secure it. The moral obligation did not enter into the contract. He refused to recognize that, and denied his liability, and the proof is convincing that he and his wife were moved to execute the mortgage reluctantly, and through the fear of danger to their son, and hope to prevent his prosecution for the criminal offense of forgery. The...