used as evidence tending to rebut the presumption arising in favor of the other. The question has often arisen whether the institution of proceedings that are not strictly actions will rebut the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of time. Generally the institution of proceedings subsequent to judgment, for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, will be effective to rebut the presumption; 10 but the mere ex parte acts of a judgment creditor, in which the debtor has no part and of which he is not notified, will not tend to rebut the presumption of payment.1

11

164. Pleadings of Parties.-The mere allegation on the part of the plaintiff that no portion of the debt had ever been paid will not suffice to rebut the presumption of payment; otherwise, there would be no use of a presumption of payment resulting from lapse of time.12 But a plea of payment entered by the defendant and supported by proof will rebut the presumption, for the whole theory of presumptions arising from the staleness of the claim is based on the absence of proof bearing, in the one or the other way, directly on the subject.18 It has been held that if an affidavit of defense, in a proceeding to revive a judgment more than twenty years old, affirmatively sets up the defense of presumption of payment from lapse of time, an additional averment therein that the defendant has not made any "new promise nor paid any money on account of said judgment" does not rebut the presumption of payment. It should be regarded as the negation of any obligation arising from a payment on account, and not as a declaration that the whole debt is due because none of it has been paid.1

XIII. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS

Voluntary Payments

165. In General. It is a universally recognized rule that money. voluntarily paid under a claim of right to the payment, and with knowledge of the facts by the person making the payment, cannot be recovered back on the ground that the claim was illegal,15 or that

9. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 724.

15. Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73,

10. Notes: 1 L.R.A. 628; 7 Ann. 22 U. S. (L. ed.) 528; United States Cas. 724.

11. Note: 7 Ann. Cas. 724. 12. Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. St. 463, 41 Atl. 613, 68 A. S. R. 879.

13. Adair v. Adair, 5 Mich. 204, 71 Am. Dec. 779; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724, 69 S. W. 345, 91 A. S. R. 769, 58 L.R.A. 694.

14. Hummel v. Lilly, 188 Pa. 463, 41 Atl. 613, 68 A. S. R. 879.

St.

v. Wilson, 168 U. S. 273, 18 S. Ct. 85, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 464; United States v. Edmondston, 181 U. S. 500, 21 S. Ct. 718, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 971; Rector v. Collins, 46 Ark. 167, 55 Am. Rep. 571; Brumagin v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 265, 79 Am. Dec. 176; Beecher v. Buckingham, 18 Conn. 110, 44 Am. Dec. 580 and note; Cobb v. Charter, 32 Conn. 358, 87 Am. Dec. 178; Kimpton v. Studebaker Bros. Co., 14 Idaho

there was no liability to pay in the first instance, 16 though the payer makes the payment expressly reserving his right to litigate his claim,17 or under the impression that the demand was legal.18 So it has been held that where one pays a part of a claim and in a suit to recover the balance it is decided that there was no liability he cannot recover the part originally paid.19 The rule applies not only as between individuals but also to cases in which one of the parties is the govern

Dec. 739; Kenneth v. South Carolina
R. Co., 15 Rich. L. (S. C.) 284, 98
Am. Dec. 382 and note; Hardaway v.
Southern R. Co., 90 S. C. 475, 73 S. E.
1020, Ann. Cas. 1913D 266; Boyd v.
Anderson, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 438, 3
Am. Dec. 762; Leach v. Cowan, 125
Tenn. 182, 140 S. W. 1070, Ann. Cas.
1913C 188; Flock v. National Bank of
Commerce, 8 Utah 193, 30 Pac. 746,
17 L.R.A. 583; Gilson v. Bingham, 43
Vt. 410, 5 Am. Rep. 289.

552, 94 Pac. 1039, 125 A. S. R. 185, N. W. 922, 44 A. S. R. 529; Peters v. 14 Ann. Cas. 1126; Illinois Glass Co. Marietta, etc., R. Co., 42 Ohio St. 275, v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 51 Am. Rep. 814; Carson v. McFar85 N. E. 200, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 124; land, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 118, 19 Am. Dec. Ligonier v. Ackerman, 46 Ind. 552, 15 627; Morris v. Tarin, 1 Dall. (Pa.) Am. Rep. 323; Ellsworth v. Randall, 147, 1 U. S. (L. ed.) 76, 1 Am. Dec. 78 Ia. 141, 42 N. W. 629, 16 A. S. R. 233; Taylor v. Board of Health, 31 425; Hubbard v. Hickman, 4 Bush Pa. St. 73, 72 Am. Dec. 724; Pepper(Ky.) 204, 96 Am. Dec. 297; Worsley day v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 183 Pa. v. New Orleans Second Municipality, St. 519, 38 Atl. 1030, 63 A. S. R. 769, 9 Rob. (La.) 324, 41 Am. Dec. 333; 39 L.R.A. 529; Robinson v. CharlesNew Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana ton, 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 317, 45 Am. Constr., etc., Co., 109 La. 13, 33 So. 51, 94 A. S. R. 395 and note; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Faunce, 6 Gill (Md.) 68, 46 Am. Dec. 655 and note; Lester v. Baltimore, 29 Md. 415, 96 Am. Dec. 542; Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 65 Md. 34, 3 Atl. 676, 57 Am. Rep. 301; Jordon v. Phelps, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 545, 50 Am. Dec. 747; Benson v. Monroe, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 125, 54 Am. Dec. 716 and note; Wyman v. Fiske, 3 Allen (Mass.) 238, 80 Am. Dec. 66 and note; Regan v. Baldwin, 126 Mass. 485, 30 Am. Rep. 689; Joannin v. Ogelvie, 49 Minn. 564, 52 N. W. 217, 32 A. S. R. 581, 16 L.R.A. 376; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 84 Am. Dec. 54; Evans v. Gale, 17 N. H. 573, 43 Am. Dec. 614; Boutelle v. Melendy, 19 N. H. 196, 49 Am. Dec. 152; Decker v. Adams, 28 N. J. L. 511, 78 Am. Dec. 65; Camden v. Green, 54 N. J. L. 591, 25 Atl. 357, 33 A. S. R. 686; Waite v. Leggette, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 195, 18 Am. Dec. 441 and note; Howes v. Barker, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 506, 3 Am. Dec. 526; Hall v. Shultz, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 240, 4 Am. Dec. 270; Adams v. Reeves, 68 N. C. 134, 12 Am. Rep. 627; Simms v. Vick, 151 N. C. 78, 65 S. E. 621, 18 Ann. Cas. 669, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 517; Wessell v. D. S. B. Johnston Land, etc., Co., 3 N. D. 160, 54

Notes: 19 Am. Dec. 135; 27 Am. Dec. 489; 94 A. S. R. 409, 423; 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 301; 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 346.

And see ASSUMPSIT, vol. 2, p. 784. 16. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Faunce, 6 Gill (Md.) 68, 46 Am. Dec. 655; Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 65 Md. 34, 3 Atl. 676, 57 Am. Rep. 301; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 84 Am. Dec. 54; Adams v. Reeves, 68 N. C. 134, 12 Am. Rep. 627; Leach v. Cowan, 125 Tenn. 182, 140 S. W. 1070, Ann. Cas. 1913C 188.

17. Bulkley V. Stewart, 1 Day (Conn.) 130, 2 Am. Dec. 57; Mowatt v. Wright, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 355, 19 Am. Dec. 508.

18. Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill (Md.) 425, 45 Am. Dec. 145.

19. Fuller v. Shattuck, 13 Gray (Mass.) 70, 74 Am. Dec. 622 and note.

ment.20 But the government as well as individuals has power in all cases to waive the question of voluntary payment, and provide that any mistake shall be corrected and any excess of payment refunded by the officer receiving it.1

166. Reason for Rule.-The reason of the rule that money voluntarily paid with full knowledge of the facts can never be recovered and its propriety are quite obvious when applied to a case of payment on a mere demand of money unaccompanied with any power or authority to enforce such demand, except by suit at law. In such case, if the party would resist an unjust demand, he must do so at the threshold. The parties treat with each other on equal terms, and if litigation is intended by the one of whom the money is demanded, it should precede payment. When the person making the payment can only be reached by a proceeding at law, he is bound to make his defense in the first instance, and he cannot postpone the litigation by paying the demand in silence and afterward suing to recover the amount paid. Otherwise, the privilege is left to him of selecting his own time and convenience for litigation, delaying it, as the case may be, until the evidence on which his adversary would have relied to sustain his claim may be lost by the lapse of time and the many casualties to which human affairs are exposed."

167. What Constitutes Voluntary Payment.-A definition of voluntary payment is useful only to the extent that it gives the elements which must exist in order to make a payment voluntary. Each case must necessarily depend on its own peculiar facts. A rule which will furnish a safe guide in the determination of particular cases is that where a person pays an illegal demand, with a full knowledge of all the facts which render the demand illegal, without an immediate and urgent necessity therefor, or unless to release his person or property from detention, or to prevent an immediate seizure of his person or property, such payment is voluntary; and the fact

20. United States v. Wilson, 168 U. S. 273, 18 S. Ct. 85, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 464; United States v. Edmondston, 181 U. S. 500, 21 S. Ct. 718, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 971.

1. United States v. Edmondston, 181 T. S. 500, 21 S. Ct. 718, 45 U. S. (L. ed) 971.

2. Cobb v. Charter, 32 Conn. 358, 87 Am. Dec. 178; Ligonier v. Ackerman, 46 Ind. 552, 15 Am. Rep. 323, overruled on another point by Jennings v. Fisher, 103 Ind. 112, 2 Ñ. E. 285; Dickerman v. Lord, 21 Ia. 338, 89 Am. Dec. 579; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana Constr., etc., Co., 109 La. 13, 33 So. 517, 94 A. S. R. 395 and

note; Decker v. Adams, 28 N. J. L. 511, 78 Am. Dec. 65.

3. Dickerman v. Lord, 21 Ia. 338, 89 Am. Dec. 579.

Note: 94 A. S. R. 410.

4. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Dodge County, 98 U. S. 541, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 196; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 S. Ct. 620, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1016; United States v. New York, etc., Mail Steamship Co., 200 U. S. 488, 26 S. Ct. 327, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 569; Brunson v. Crawford County Levee Dist., 107 Ark. 24, 153 S. W. 828, Ann. Cas. 1915A 493, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293; Illinois Glass Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 Ill. 535, 85 N. E.

that the person making the payment files a written protest at the time does not change its character. The question whether a payment is voluntary or involuntary is one of law where the facts are undisputed, but when the facts are in dispute it is for the jury to say whether the money was paid voluntarily or in consequence of compulsion or duress.7

168. Illegal Taxes.-The entire question of the right to recover the amount of illegal taxes paid by a property owner is fully discussed in another part of this work, and the discussion herein is confined to the question whether their payment is voluntary. In some of the states the right to recover illegal taxes paid under protest is given by statute. In states where there is no statute regulating the matter, if any recovery is had, it must be under the rules of the common law. In most jurisdictions the rule prevails in the absence of statute that the payment of an illegal tax with full knowledge of the facts, and without any fraud, duress or extortion, is a voluntary payment although made under protest.10 At the same time, when taxes are paid under protest that they are being illegally exacted, or with notice that the payer contends that they are illegal, and intends to institute suit to compel their repayment, a recovery in such a suit may on occasion be had; 11 although generally speaking even a protest or notice will not avail if the payment be made voluntarily, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, and without any coercion by the actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person or property of the party making the

200, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 124; Wessel v. D. S. B. Johnston Land, etc., Co., 3 N. D. 160, 54 N. W. 922, 44 A. S. R. 529 and note.

5. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Dodge County, 98 U. S. 541, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 196; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 S. Ct. 620, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1016; Wessel v. D. S. B. Johnston Land, etc., Co., 3 N. D. 160, 54 N. W. 922, 44 A. S. R. 529 and note.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1915A 495. 6. Eslow v. Albion, 153 Mich. 720, 117 N. W. 328, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 872. 7. Adams v. Irving Nat. Bank, 116 N. Y. 606, 23 N. E. 7, 15 A. S. R. 447, 6 L.R.A. 491.

8. See TAXATION.

9. Brunson V. Crawford County Levee Dist., 107 Ark. 24, 153 S. W. 828, Ann. Cas. 1915A 493, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293.

10. Lamborn v. Dickinson County, 97 U. S. 181, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 926; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 S. Ct. 620, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1016; Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U. S. 253, 24 S. Ct. 262, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 432; Brunson v. Crawford County Levee Dist., 107 Ark. 24, 153 S. W. 828, Ann. Cas. 1915A 493 and note, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293; Louisville v. Becker, 139 Ky. 17, 129 S. W. 311, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1045; Cox v. Welcher, 68 Mich. 263, 36 N. W. 69, 13 A. S. R. 339; Parcher V. Marathon County, 52 Wis. 388, 9 N. W. 23, 38 Am. Rep. 745.

Notes: 94 A. S. R. 425; Ann. Cas. 1913C 1052.

11. Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U. S. 253, 24 S. Ct. 262, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 432.

payment, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than such payment.12

Involuntary Payments

169. In General.-It is a well settled fact that illegal payments. coerced under duress or compulsion may be recovered, 13 provided the compulsion furnishes the motive for the payment sought to be recovered, 14 and proceeds from the person against whom the action is brought.15 Where money is paid on compulsion, the law raises an obligation to refund, and the form of the action is for money had and received to the plaintiff's use.16 The rules governing duress of the person are not applied in all their rigor to persons of weak or impaired intellects. The mental condition of the person acted on must always be taken into consideration. The law does not leave the old, the weak, the ignorant, and the timid at the mercy of those who would operate on their fears to secure the payment of an unlawful demand. Regard must be had to the age, sex, and condition of mind, and the law relaxed accordingly.17

12. Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, Bulow v. Goddard, 1 Nott & McC. 10 S. Ct. 620, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 1016; (S. C.) 45, 9 Am. Dec. 663; Kenneth Chesebrough v. United States. 192 v. South Carolina R. Co., 15 Rich. L. U. S. 253, 24 S. Ct. 262, 48 U. S. (L. (S. C.) 284, 98 Am. Dec. 382; Boyd ed.) 432; United States v. New York, v. Anderson, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) 438, 3 etc., Mail Steamship Co., 200 U. S. Am. Dec. 762; Soderberg v. King 488, 26 S. Ct. 327, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) County, 15 Wash. 194, 45 Pac. 785, 569. 55 A. S. R. 878, 33 L.R.A. 670; Guetzkow Bros. Co. v. Breese, 96 Wis. 591, 72 N. W. 45, 65 A. S. R. 83.

Notes: 51 Am. Rep. 821; 94 A. S. R. 411, 426; 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 388; Ann. Cas. 1913C 1052; 8 U. S. (L. ed.) 299, 300, 301.

124.

13. Lamborn v. Dickinson County, 97 U. S. 181, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 926; Swift, etc., Co. v. United States, 111 U. S. 22, 4 S. Ct. 244, 28 U. S. (L. ed.) 341; Arkansas Bldg., etc., Ass'n v. Maddern, 175 U. S. 269, 20 S. Ct. 119, 44 U. S. (L. ed.) 159; Ligonier 14. Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. v. Ackerman, 46 Ind. 552, 15 Am. 265, 79 Am. Dec. 176; Illinois Glass Rep. 323, overruled on another point Co. v. Chicago Telephone Co., 234 by Jennings v. Fisher, 103 Ind. 112, Ill. 535, 85 N. E. 200, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 2 N. E. 285; Dickerman v. Lord, 21 Ia. 338, 89 Am. Dec. 579; Chamberlain v. Reed, 13 Me. 357, 29 Am. Dec. 506; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Cribbs v. Sowle, 87 Mich. 340, 49 N. W. 587, 24 A. S. R. 166 and note; Westlake v. St. Louis, 77 Mo. 47, 46 Am. Rep. 4; American Brewing Co. v. St. Louis, 187 Mo. 367, 86 S. W. 129, 2 Ann. Cas. 821; Mowatt v. Wright, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 355, 19 Am. Dec. 508; Ripley v. Gelston, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 201, 6 Am. Dec. 271;

15. United States v. New York, etc., Mail Steamship Co., 200 U. S. 488, 26 S. Ct. 327, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 569; Brunson v. Crawford County Levee Dist., 107 Ark. 24, 153 S. W. 828, Ann. Cas. 1915A 493, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293 and note.

Note: 45 Am. Dec. 154.

16. McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365, 70 Am. Dec. 655.

17. Note: 94 A. S. R. 418.