*<  It  was  argued  for  the  defendants  that  it  cannot ;  for,  that  the  payments  were  madt
voluntarily,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances ;  and  that  the  plaintiff  was
not  compelled  to  make  those  payments,  hut,  in  each  case,  must  he  considered  as  having
made  a  contract  with  the  company  to  pay  them  a  certain  sum  of  money  as  the  consideration
for  the  carriage  of  his  goods ;  and  that  having  made  such  contracts,  he  cannot  now
retract,  and  recover  the  money  paid  in  pursuance  of  them.  In  sup}>ort  of  this  aigument
Knibbs  v.  Hall  (1  Esp.  84),  Brown  t;.  M'Kinally  (1  Esp.  279),  Bilbie  v.  Lumley
(2  East,  469),  and  Brisbane  v.  Dacres  (5  Taimt.  143),  were  cited.  On  the  other  side,  it
was  urged,  that  these  could  not  be  considered  as  voluntary  payments ;  that  the  parties
were  not  on  an  equal  footing  ;  that  the  defendants  would  not,  until  such  payments  were
made,  perform  that  service  for  the  plaintiff  which  he  was  entitled  by  law  to  receive  from
them  without  making  such  payments ;  and  that,  consequently,  he  was  acting  under  coer-
cion ;  and  in  support  of  this  view  of  the  case,  Dew  v.  Parsons  (2  6.  &  A.  562;  1  Chit.
295),  Morgan  v.  Palmer  (2  B.  &  C.  729;  4  D.  &  R.  288),  and  Waterhouse  v.  Keen
(4  B.  &  C.  200  ;  6  D.  &  R.  257),  were  referred  to.
