Williamson v. Ackerman

Citations

• 77 Kan. 502
• 94 P. 807
• 1908 Kan. LEXIS 295

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Contracts — Duress — Threat to Prosecute Obligor’s Son. A contract, in order to be valid and binding, must be the result of the free assent of the parties making it; and where a father is coerced into executing a mortgage to secure the payment of a defalcation of his son, by threats of the arrest and prosecution of the son for embezzlement if such security is not given, the mortgage may be avoided on the ground of duress.</p> <p>2. - Test to Determine Whether there Was Duress. The test in determining -whether there was duress is not so much the means by which the father was .compelled to execute the mortgage 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>3. - Guilt or Innocence of Accused Immaterial. If the threats of the arrest and prosecution of the son operated to deprive the father of his free will-power and to constrain the execution of the mortgage, the actual guilt or innocence of the son upon the charge of embezzlement is not a material question in determining whether there was duress, and in charging the jury upon that defense it is not essential that the court should give a complete definition of the offense of embezzlement.</p>