Piper

Piper v. Cashell

Good Law
122 F. 614·2 Alaska Fed. 74·58 C.C.A. 396·1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 3912
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 1903No. 853California810 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Several of the assignments of error may be disposed of upon a consideration of the question whether or not the threat of evicting the plaintiff in error from the possession of the property in controversy as pleaded in the answer constituted such duress or threat as to render voidable the lease ■ which he and Wood took from Rodee and Shaw on Feb- . ruary 1, 1900. The gist of these averments, as they must be construed in view of the uncertainty of some of them, is that Sullivan procured a judgment in the municipal court of Nome in an action which he brought against Hawks, Piper, and Wood, and threatened to enforce the same. It is not alleged that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties to the action. It is true it is said that the action was a pretended .one, but wherein the pretense consisted is not pointed out. It is alleged also that the plaintiff in error was threatened with prosecution before the municipal court of Nome, “a court without jurisdiction, and having no legal existence.” The most that can be said of this allegation is that the court was without jurisdiction of such criminal prosecution, and that at that time it had no legal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.