Van der Hoven v. Nette

Citations

• 32 Tex. 183

Syllabus

<p>1— Payments in Confederate money during the rebellion, which were accepted without objection at the time they were made, can not be avoided on the ground that they were received only because the recipient stood in dread of the rebel authorities, who then denounced and threatened all persons who refused to accept Confederate money in discharge of their dues. Such general apprehension is not duress.</p> <p>2— The common law of duress has been much modified in modern times by the courts, but it has not been abrogated.</p> <p>3— Though duress, even by a stranger, may enable a maker of a contract to avoid it, yet the duress must have been imposed by overt acts of violence or by threats, at the time of the making of the contract.</p> <p>4— Vague and undefined fears of violence, from nobody in particular, but from everybody in general, at some indefinite future time, and with no cotemporaneous demonstration of violence, do not constitute duress in contemplation of law.</p> <p>5— The duress relievable by the courts must have been a direct personal duress. Mere general menaces leveled at all protestants against the popular will could not constitute such duress as is cognizable by the courts.</p>