204 N.W. 156 | Minn. | 1925
George A. Quinn, the son of plaintiffs, was cashier in a Minneapolis bank. Defendant had given its bond indemnifying the bank against loss from defalcation of the cashier. On April 18, 1923, George revealed to his parents that he was short. About the same time defendant and the bank discovered his misappropriation of the funds of the bank. Defendant at once set about to secure itself against the loss it knew would follow when the full extent of George's defalcation was ascertained and the bank would seek recourse on the bond. The result was that on May 11, 1923, plaintiffs borrowed $1,075 from a nephew, which they turned over to defendant's agents, and also deeded to them their homestead, their all, in trust for defendant.
The sole question on the appeal is whether the evidence supports the verdict of the jury and the findings of the court that the money was obtained and the conveyance made under duress. The court charged the jury that plaintiffs could not recover unless they had satisfied the jury affirmatively that the money and deed were thus obtained, saying "duress is such pressure or constraint as compels a person to go against his will and virtually takes away his free *322 agency and destroys the power of refusing to comply with the unlawful demand of another." The definition of duress in law was further amplified on the same line. No question is raised as to the correctness of the charge, but the contention is that the evidence does not warrant a verdict or findings for plaintiffs. The argument is that, since there was no direct threat by defendant's agents to prosecute and plaintiffs admit that they willingly paid over the money and would never have thought of asking for its return had their son not been prosecuted, there was a voluntary payment and not one under duress.
Implied threats may be as effective as direct. Meech v. Lee,
This is far different from the case of American Nat. Bank of Lake Crystal v. Helling,
The proposition is urged that, on plaintiffs testimony, there was an attempt to compound a felony, and on that account the law leaves the parties thereto without redress. This is the rule in some states. Union Exch. Nat. Bank v. Joseph,
To the cases cited by Judge Taylor, may be added Holt v. Agnew,
The case of Foley v. Greene, supra, is similar to the instant case in that there was no evidence of direct threats, and nevertheless it was held a question of fact whether there was duress. Where there is duress, the victim thereof cannot be said to be in pari delicto with the party to the agreement who procured it by the unlawful pressure. It is difficult to see how one who by duress is so robbed of his free will that the law regards his contract as voidable is in position to make an agreement to compound a crime. Our statute makes the taker and not the giver of the consideration for an agreement to stifle prosecution guilty of crime. Section 10034, G.S. 1923; State v. Quinlan,
Bode v. Jussen,
Of course, where there is a free and voluntary payment or conveyance to prevent prosecution of a person, or a near relative, the parties are left as found. It is only where the one making the payment or conveyance is shown to have been pressed thereto by express or implied threats of disgrace, disaster to person or property, or criminal prosecution, so that he could not have exercised any choice or free will in the matter. Having in mind the quantum of proof required in a case of this sort, we still think the evidence here made it a question of fact for the jury and the trial court whether the plaintiffs were impelled by the fear of threatened imprisonment of their only child to give their all, and more, to defendant's agents, under the belief that he would go free so that they did not make the payment or execute the deed voluntarily. If they were so coerced *325
they lacked also the power to conspire with defendant to do an unlawful act, and do not come within the denunciation of Holland v. Sheehan,
The orders are affirmed.