What is the test for a plaintiff's right to demand payment of 3,000 dollars from Respondent to Respondent?

'Respondent had a right to sell its property without being molested with the wrongful levy of execution based upon appellant's unfounded claim that her judgment debtor had an interest in the property. That right was denied to respondent by the act of appellant. Owing to the threatened loss of the [42 Cal.App.3d 677] sale and the delay necessarily incident to the prosecution of the injunction suit, respondent's only means of avoiding serious loss was by payment of the money. Under these circumstances the payment may not be considered voluntary (McTigue v. Arctic Ice Cream S. Co., Supra, 20 Cal.App. 708, 130 P. 165), and the trial court properly found that 'the exaction of the three thousand dollars from the plaintiff was without right on the part of the defendant and that plaintiff paid the same under compulsion in order to save financial loss to plaintiff.'