The elements of duress include a threat coupled with an apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat so that the will of the other is overcome. See Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 ( 67 S.E.2d 713) (1951); Hoover v. Mobley, 198 Ga. 68 ( 31 S.E.2d 9) (1944). These sections are tracked by the language in Code Ann. § 81A-160 (e). Code Ann. § 37-219 appears in the title on Equity; Code Ann. § 110-710, under Verdict and Judgment.

1. Inasmuch as Division 3 of this opinion, infra, supports a judgment of affirmance, no ruling is made or required on any issue of whether the appeal is subject to dismissal as premature or not involving a properly certified interlocutory order. See City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (1) ( 195 S.E. 162); Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (1) ( 67 S.E.2d 713); Hunter v. Ogletree, 212 Ga. 543, 544 ( 93 S.E.2d 717); Johnston v. Clayton County Water Authority, 222 Ga. 39 (4) ( 148 S.E.2d 417); Hodges v. Thibadeau, 122 Ga. App. 334 (2) ( 177 S.E.2d 127). 2. It is unnecessary to consider the third and fourth enumerations, the appellant having conceded by brief that the only issue for determination is the construction of the will.

It is not necessary to pass upon the question of whether the appeal in this case should be dismissed since the judgment is affirmed. City of Hawkinsville v. Williams, 185 Ga. 396 (1) ( 195 S.E. 162); Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (1) ( 67 S.E.2d 713); Hunter v. Ogletree, 212 Ga. 543, 544 ( 93 S.E.2d 717). Judgment affirmed.

3. The evidence in the present case did not show that the Clayton County Water Authority abused its discretion in locating the sewer line across the appellants property, and the trial judge did not err in denying the interlocutory injunction. 4. Since there is an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, no ruling will be made on the motion to dismiss the appeal. Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (1) ( 67 S.E.2d 713). ARGUED MARCH 15, 1966 — DECIDED APRIL 7, 1966.

The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection (a) of this Code section, the instrument is also issued for consideration.”).See Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523, 523(2), 67 S.E.2d 713 (1951) (“[T]he mere inadequacy of consideration alone will not avoid the contract.”); Merritt, 298 Ga.App. at 89(1), 679 S.E.2d 97 (same); see also Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., Inc., 264 Ga.App. 573, 577(1)(c), 591 S.E.2d 462 (2003) (“We note that inadequacy of consideration is not in and of itself a defense to an action on a contract.”).

The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection (a) of this Code section, the instrument is also issued for consideration.”).See Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523, 523(2), 67 S.E.2d 713 (1951) (“[T]he mere inadequacy of consideration alone will not avoid the contract.”); Merritt, 298 Ga.App. at 89(1), 679 S.E.2d 97 (same); see also Bonem v. Golf Club of Ga., Inc., 264 Ga.App. 573, 577(1)(c), 591 S.E.2d 462 (2003) (“We note that inadequacy of consideration is not in and of itself a defense to an action on a contract.”).

As Bonem received full consideration for the note, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Club on account of evidence of a full or partial failure of consideration. Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (2) ( 67 S.E.2d 713) (1951). OCGA § 11-3-303(b).

(Emphasis supplied.) Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (3) ( 67 S.E.2d 713) (1951). Sellers has been informed of this law before three different courts in this state, and each time it has failed to heed what it has been told, despite the fact that it has previously been sanctioned for its actions.

Also, a negotiable note given in liquidation of a disputed claim is not without consideration. Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523 (3) ( 67 S.E.2d 713). Nor does defendant's denial that the second note was a renewal of the first note present a jury issue.

"[D]uress ... is ... show[n] [where] there was an apparent intention and ability to execute the threat that would have coerced action or inaction contrary to the victim's will." Littlegreen v. Gardner, 208 Ga. 523, 524 (5) ( 67 S.E.2d 713) (1951). "An act must be wrongful to constitute duress, and it is not duress to threaten to do what one has a legal right to do. The threat to bring a civil proceeding against a person is not duress in a legal sense.