Skip to main content
· 2/19/1912

Fountain v. Bigham

Citations

  • 235 Pa. 35
  • 84 A. 131
  • 1912 Pa. LEXIS 496

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Compounding of felony — Act of March 81, 1860, P. L. 88% — Bond—Duress.</p> <p>1. In an action upon a bond where the defense is that the bond was signed by the surety to prevent her son-in-law from being prosecuted for forgery, the burden is upon the defendant to show that the plaintiff committed the offense of compounding a felony. In such a case the essential ingredients of the crime set up as a defense to the bond, are (1) that a forgery was committed, (2) that the obligee in the bond had knowledge of the actual commission of the offense at the time he took the bond, and (3) that in consideration of being given the bond to secure its indebtedness he agreed “to compound or conceal the crime.”</p> <p>2. Under the Act of March 31, 1860, P. 1. 382, it is “a knowledge of the actual commission of any forgery,” and not a knowledge of the party who committed the forgery, that is the essential element of the offense.</p> <p>3. Where compounding of felony is set up as a defense in an action on a bond, it is only necessary for the defendant to establish the commission of the offense by a preponderance of testimony. In such a case a threat to prosecute the principal in the bond is in itself evidence for the jury of the plaintiff’s knowledge that the principal had committed the forgery charged.</p> <p>Contracts — Duress—Invalidity of contract.</p> <p>4. A contract obtained by duress or acts of coercion or intimidation may be invalidated. Under such circumstances the party coerced is not exercising his free will, but executing the will of the party who subjects him to the coercion, and, therefore, the instrument bearing his signature is not the contract of the party against whom it is sought to be enforced. The test is not so much the means by which the party was compelled to execute the contract as it is the state of mind induced by the means employed,— the fear which made it impossible for him to exercise his own free will.</p> <p>5. The threat must be of s

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.