Neibuhr v. Gage
99 Minn. 149, 108 N.W. 884, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 396 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who is compelled to enter into a contract or transfer property under duress may elect to either rescind the transaction in equity or affirm the transaction and sue for damages at law. The equitable doctrines of laches and ratification do not bar a timely action at law for damages resulting from the duress.
Facts:
- On February 23, 1898, the plaintiff owned ninety-one shares of stock in Gage, Hayden & Co., a corporation.
- On that date, the defendant, Gage, accused the plaintiff of having feloniously appropriated money and property from the corporation.
- Gage claimed to possess sufficient evidence to ensure the plaintiff's conviction for grand larceny and threatened to have him immediately arrested and imprisoned.
- While the plaintiff was allegedly held, denied the opportunity to consult with friends or counsel, and in fear of imprisonment, Gage demanded he transfer the ninety-one shares of stock.
- Under this alleged compulsion and without any consideration, the plaintiff transferred his stock to Gage.
- The plaintiff maintained that the accusations of theft were false and were made for the sole purpose of unlawfully depriving him of his property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant, Gage, in a trial court to recover damages for the value of stock allegedly transferred under duress.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $8,478.
- The defendant filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court, however, granted the defendant's alternative motion for a new trial, believing it had erroneously instructed the jury that a contract made under duress was void rather than voidable.
- Both parties appealed to this court: the defendant (Gage) appealed the denial of his motion for judgment, and the plaintiff appealed the order granting a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who transfers property under duress have the right to affirm the transaction and sue for damages in a tort action, or is their sole remedy to seek an equitable rescission of the transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Elliott, J.
Yes, a party who transfers property under duress has the right to affirm the transaction and sue for damages. The court reasoned that duress is a species of fraud where compulsion replaces deception. Just as a victim of fraud by deceit has a choice of remedies, so too does a victim of duress. An injured party can either seek to rescind the contract in equity—which requires prompt action and returning any consideration—or they can affirm the contract and bring an action at law for damages. The equitable defenses of laches and ratification are inapplicable to a legal action for damages, which is governed only by the statute of limitations. The court concluded that a wrongdoer should not be able to dictate the remedy and restrict the victim to a course of action that may be more burdensome.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the remedies available for duress, aligning them with the established remedies for fraud by deceit. It establishes that victims of duress are not confined to the often-difficult equitable remedy of rescission, which requires prompt action and restoration of the status quo. By affirming the right to sue for damages at law, the court provides a more flexible and often more practical avenue for relief, allowing a plaintiff to seek compensation for the tortious act without needing to unwind the entire transaction. This precedent empowers victims by giving them an election of remedies, preventing wrongdoers from using procedural hurdles associated with equity to escape liability for their coercive acts.
