Mineral Railroad & Mining Co. v. Flaherty

Citations

• 24 Pa. Super. 236
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 161

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Duress—Threats—Landlord and tenant — Rent.</p> <p>The constraint which takes away the agency and destroys the power of withholding assent to a contract must be one which is imminent and without immediate means of prevention, and be such as would operate on the mind of a person of a reasonable firmness of purpose. A threat to withhold payment of a debt, or to refuse performance of a contract, or to do an injury which may at once be redressed by legal proceeding, will not amount to duress per minas. Mere threats of injury to property, without a power over it which would enable the person so threatening to carry out his threats, do not in themselves constitute such duress.</p> <p>In an action to recover rent it appeared from the uncontradicted testimony that the defendant had paid rent from year to year for eighteen or nineteen years. The defendant testified that prior to paying rent for the first time an agent of plaintiff had said to him, “16 you don’t come down and pay the rent, I’ll bring a force of hands and tumble the building right upside down.” Neither the defendant nor his witnesses could say when such threat was made. Defendant said that he could not say whether it was made five years or one year before. There was no evidence that any subsequent threat was made to defendant, and he continued to pay rent without objection thereafter. It also appeared that he endeavored at different times to buy the property'from plaintiff. Held, (1) that the evidence was not sufficient to show that at the time of the first payment of'rent defendant was acting under any legal duress; (2) that the defendant after recognizing the plaintiff as his landlord by the payment o£ rent for many years, was not in a position to deny plaintiff’s title in an action for rent.</p> <p>Landlord and tenant — Action for rent — Amendment.</p> <p>In an action for rent where the evidence at the trial shows that all of the dealings of the defendant were with the plaintiff, an amendment m