Astley vers reynolds see ashmole v wainwright Q b g d approve green v duckett  Q b d where money be extort by duress of good assumpsit will lie for it vide  Dutch v warren ante and the case cite in the note barn b r in a action for  money have and receive to the plaintiff use the case reserve for the  consideration of the court be that above three year ago the plaintiff pawn  plate to the defendant for l and at the three year end come to redeem it and  the defendant insist to have l for the interest of it and the plaintiff tender  he l know l to be more than strange legal interest that the defendant refuse  to take it they part and at some month distance the plaintiff come and make a  second tender of the l but the defendant still insist upon l the plaintiff pay  it and have his good and now bring this action for the surplus beyond legal  interest for the plaintiff it be insist by reeve Filmer and draper that the  action lie the plaintiff not be sharing in sin and have pay the money not upon  the foot of a usurious contract but by compulsion they a reed the case in salk  that if he have be party to the fraud he can not maintain the action but here  they say the money be extort and extortion and usury differ in this that one  be give free and the other involuntary and a man shall avoid a deed by duress  of his good as well as of his person roll Abr and it be observable that all  the law against usury be for the punishment of the lender and not of the  borrower and that it be not pretend that there be any agreement about the  interest at the time of the loan and a case be cite of Wilkinson v Kitrhin  Trin W where money be give to a Newgate solicitor to lie out in bribe and it  be hold by holt chief justice that it may be recover back from he in a  indebitat S assumpsit though it appear he have dispose of it accord to his  direction e contra it be argue by marsh and fazakerley that there be no colour  to say the plaintiff pay it either by mistake or force it be state that be  know the l he tender be beyond the legal interest and he do it with his eye  open have another remedy for his good by trover after tender of the legal  interest and it fall within the rule willing non fit in an unjust manner et  per curian the case of payment by mistake or deceit be not to be dispute but  this case be neither for the plaintiff know what he do in that lie the  strength of the objection but we do not think the tender of the l will hurt he  for a man may tender too much though a tender of too little be bad and where a  man do not know exact what be due be must at his peril take care to tender  enough we think also that this be a payment by compulsion the plaintiff may  have such a immediate want of his good that a action of trover will not do his  business where the rule willing non fit in an unjust manner be apply it must  be where the party have his freedom of exercise his will which this man have  not we must take it he pay the money rely on his legal remedy to get it back  again strange report er p strange the plaintiff have judgement and the  defendant die pen the argument judgement be order to be enter nunc pro tune  vide isleys case Leon latch crisp and Jackson v mayor of Berwick side vent  cumber v wain ante tailor v matthews Mod and baller v Delander cite ib tooker  v duke of Beaufort burr sir John Trelawney v bishop of Winchester ib in b r  and craven v Hanley barn S p in c b in this case be cite sumner v ferryman Mod  a hill wherein it be say to be hold that a bind can not be avoid by duress of  good contrary to the case cite out of roll Abr