Duress of goods also exists "where one is compelled to submit to an illegal exaction in order to obtain them from one who has them in possession, but refuses to surrender them unless the exaction is submitted to." Cooley, J., Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 569 ; see infra, sec 439, 737-8.

1 Smith v. Bromley, Doug. 696 ; Ash-mole v. Wainwright, 2 Q. B. 837; Oates v. Hudson, 6 Exch. 346 ; Shaw v. Woodcock, 7 B. & C. 73; Maxwell v. Griswold, 10 How. 242; Silliman v. U. S., 101 U. S. 465 ; Chase v. Dwinel, 7 Greenl. 134; Sartwell v. Horton, 28 Vt. 370; Wilcox v. Howland, 23 Pick. 167; Cobb v. Charter, 32 Conn. 358;.

Collins v. Westbury, 2 Bay, 211; Harvey v. Olney, 42 111. 336; Alston v. Durant, 2 Strobh. 257. That threats of destruction of goods may avoid a promise thus coerced, see Foshey v. Ferguson, 5 Hill, 158.

2 Dew v. Parsons, 2 B. & Ald. 562; Ogden v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. 319 ; Cunningham v. Munroe, 15 Gray, 471 ; Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99 ; Allentown v. Saeger, 20 Penn. St. 421; White v. Heylman, 34 Penn. St. 142 ; American St. Co. v. Young, 89 Penn. St. 186 ; Deal v. Martin, 1 Phila. 500 ; Tenbrook v. Phila., 7 Phila. 105 ; Els-ton v. Chicago, 40 111. 514; Sasportas v. Jennings, 1 Bay, 470; Quinnett v. Washington, 10 Mo. 53 ; Laterade v. Kaiser, 15 La. Ann. 296. As to payment to tax collectors see infra, sec 737.

3 Chase v. Dwinel, 7 Greenl. 134.

4 Scholey v. Mumford, 60 N. Y. 498. As to payment under protest see infra, sec 737.

5 Irving v. Wilson, 4 T. R. 485 ; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 138 ; Marriott v. Brune, 9 How. U. S. 619; Maxwell v. Griswold, 10 How. U. S. 242; and cases cited infra, sec 738. That taxes paid under protest may thus be recovered, see infra, sec 738.

till the exaction is submitted to;1 or a creditor withholds his certificate from a bankrupt.2 And the mere threat to employ colorable legal authority to compel payment of an unfounded claim is such duress as will support an action to recover back what is paid under it.3 But where the party threatens nothing; which he has not a legal right to perform, there is no duress.4 When, therefore, a judgment creditor threatens to levy his execution on the debtor's goods, and under fear of the levy the debtor executes and delivers a note for the amount, with sureties, the note cannot be avoided for duress."8 -But it is not duress of goods to pay money to redeem goods from the custody of the law ;6 unless the execution or attachment be one which the plaintiff knows is without cause of action.7 Nor is it duress of goods where a creditor accepts a less sum than his just demand, when due, being at the time financially straitened, the money being accepted to avert immediate insolvency; the fact that the debtor knew of his creditor's circumstances, and availed himself of them by refusing to pay at all except at the reduced amount, not constituting duress of goods.8 Where, also, 0., on selling a house, before delivery of possession claimed the right to remove certain fixtures, which was disputed by P., the purchaser, and on O.'s threatening to remove them, P. gave his note to 0. for their value, it was held that this note could not be avoided on ground of duress.9-S., who was the owner of certain barges, having executed charter parties of them to the United States, at a fixed monthly price, as long as they were kept in service, was informed, after they had been used for some time, that he must execute a new contract, at a reduced price. This S. declined to do, and demanded the barges, which was refused. He was informed that it was the intention of the quartermaster general to retain possession without compensation, upon which he executed the new contract, stating that he did so under protest, compelled by financial necessity. The subsequent payments due him on the new contracts were received by him without protest. It was held by the supreme court of the United States that the new contract could not be regarded as void from duress, and that he could not, therefore, recover from the United States the difference between the price allowed under the old contract and that allowed and paid under the new contract.1

1 Bates v, Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 238.

2 Smith v. Bromley, Doug. 670.

3 Beckwith v. Frisbie, 32 Vt. 559 ; Adams v. Reeves, 68 N. C. 134; Briggs ,v. Lewiston, 29 Me. 472 ; Grim v. School District, 57 Penn. St. 433; First Nat. Bank v. Watkins, 21 Mich. 483.

4 Skeate v. Beale, 11 Ad. & E. 983 ; Preston v. Boston, 12 Pick. 14. 5 Wilcox v. Howland 23 Pick. 167.

Cited by Cooley, J., Hackley v. Head-ley, ut supra, 45 Mich. 569, 21 Am. Law Keg. 109, with a valuable note by Mr. Elwell.

6 Liverpool Marine Co. v. Hunter, 1 L. R. 3 Ch. 479.

7 Chandler v. Sanger, 114 Mass. 364 ; see Spaids v. Barrett, 57 111. 289.

8 Hackley v. Headley, ut supra.

9 Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Penn St. 506.