15 Neb. 284; 18 N. W. 81; Foster v. Pierce County, 15 Neb. 48; 17 N. W. 261; State v. Commissioners, 56 O. S. 718; sub nomine, State v. Bader, 47 N. E. 564; Sowles v. Soule, 59 Vt. 131; 7 Atl. 715; Bab-cock v. Fond du Lac, 58 Wis. 230;

16 N. W. 625.

3 Swift Co. v. United States, 111 U. S. 22; Douglas v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 428; 48 S. W. 851.

4 Hoefling v. San Antonio, 85 Tex. 228; 16 L. R. A. 608; 20 S. W. 85.

5 Ratterman v. Express Co., 49 O. S. 608; 32 N. E. 754. So an internal revenue tax paid under protest may be recovered. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397.

6 Erhardt v. Winter, 92 Fed. 918.

7 Hennel v. Board, etc., 132 Ind. 32; 31 N. E. 462; Minor Lumber Co. v. Alpena, 97 Mich. 499; 56 N. W. 926; St. Anthony, etc., Co. v. Bottineau, 9 N. D. 346; 50 L. R. A. 262; 83 N. W. 212.

8 Sale of realty. Thompson v. Detroit, 114 Mich. 502; 72 N. W. 320; Whitney v. Port Huron, 88 Mich. 268; 26 Am. St. Rep. 291; 50 N. W. 316; Bowns v. May, 120 N. Y. 357; 24 N. E. 947; Stephan v. Daniels, 27 O. S. 527; Whittaker v. Deadwood, 12 S. D. 608; 82 N. W. 202. Personalty. Hennel v. Board, 132 Ind. 32; 31 N. E. 462; Lyon v. Receiver, etc., 52 Mich. 271; 17 N. W. 839; Kelley v. Rhoads, 7 Wyom. 237; 75 Am. St. Rep. 904; 39 L. R. A. 594; 51 Pac. 593.

9 Montgomery v. Cowlitz County, 14 Wash. 230; 44 Pac. 259.

10 Gill v. Oakland, 124 Cal. 335; 57 Pac. 150.

11 Bowns v. May, 120 N. Y. 357; 24 N. E. 947.

12 American, etc., Union v. Hastings, 67 Minn. 303; 69 N. W. 1078.

13 American, etc., Union v. Hastings, 67 Minn. 303; 69 N. W. 1078.

14 Cox v. Welcher, 68 Mich. 263; 13 Am St. Rep. 339; 36; N. W. 69; Lindsay v. Allen, 19 R. I. 721; 36 Atl. 840.

15 Powder River Cattle Co. v. Custer County, 45 Fed. 323; Hennel v. Vanderburgh Co., 132 Ind. 32; 31 N. E. 462; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Atchison County, 47 Kan. 722; 28 Pac. 999; Kelley v. Rhoads, 7 Wyom. 237; 75 Am. St. Rep. 904; 39 L. R. A. 594; 51 Pac. 593.

16 Aetna Ins. Co. v. New York, 153 N. Y. 331; 47 N. E. 593.

17state v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 25; 4 L. R. A. 300; 42 N. W. 548. A contrary view is taken in Weston v. Luce County, 102 Mich. 528; 61 N. W. 15, but subsequently in view of the Michigan statute allowing recovery of taxes illegally exacted if paid under protest, recovery of such a payment was allowed in Gage v. Saginaw, 128 Mich. 682; 87 N. W. 1027. Hence the treasurer cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue a receipt, illegal taxes being unpaid, as the owner may pay them under protest to get his deed and recover them. State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 25;. 4 L. R. A. 300; 42 N. W. 548.

18Keehn v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 427; 49 N. E. 609; American Baptist Missionary Union v. Hastings, 67 Minn. 303; 69 N. W. 1078.

19 Howard v. Augusta, 74 Me. 79; Vaughn v. Port Chester, 135 N.' Y. 460; 32 N. E. 137; Grim v. School District, 57 Pa. St. 433; 98 Am. Dec. 237; Allen v. Burlington, 45 Vt. 202.

20 Rumford Chemical Works v. Ray, 19 R. I. 456; 34 Atl. 814.

21 Board, etc., v. R. R., 4 Kan. App. 772; 46 Pac. 1013.

22 Flint, etc., Co. v. Bidwell, 123 Fed. 200.

23Conkling v. Springfield, 132 111. 420; 24 N. E. 67.

24 Decker v. Perry (Cal.) , 35 Pac. 1017; Wilson v. Pelton, 40 O. S. 306; Houston v. Feeser, 76 Tex. 365; 13 S. W. 266.

25 Conkling v. Springfield, 132 111. 420; 24 N. E. 67; Gould v. Board, etc., 76 Minn. 279; 79 N. W. 303, 530; Dunnell Mfg. Co. v.

Newell, 15 R. I. 233; 2 Atl. 766.

26 Peninsular Iron Co. v. Crystal Falls, 60 Mich. 79; 26 N. W. 840.

27 Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 86; 22 Pac. 76.

28 Decker v. Perry (Cal.), 35 Pac. 1017; Peninsidar Iron Co. v. Crystal Falls, 60 Mich. 79; 26 N. W. 840; Bowman v. Boyd, 21 Nev. 281; 30 Pac. 823.

29Stowe v. Stowe, 70 Vt. 609; 41 Atl. 1024.

30 Phelan v. San Francisco. 120 Cal. 1; 52 Pac. 38; Otis v. People, 196 111. 542; 63 N. E. 1053.

The general rules as to recovering taxes paid under duress are always subject to this qualification. If the legislature has provided means for testing the legality of a tax, without risking loss of property, imprisonment, and the like, such method must be resorted to. Payment made without seeking such remedy will be deemed voluntary.39 Thus where an application for abatement may be made, payment under protest without making such application cannot be recovered.40 If an injunction to restrain the collection of an illegal tax is granted, and subsequently the treasurer threatens a sale of property for such tax the remedy of the property owners is by proceedings in contempt of court. Subsequent payment of such tax under such threat is voluntary and cannot be recovered.41 However, recovery has been allowed where in addition the treasurer makes the false statement that such tax has been held by the Supreme Court to be lawful.42

31 Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U. S. 253.

32 Farmers', etc., Bank v. Vanda-lia, 57 111. App. 681; Lange v. Sof-fell, 33 111. App. 624.

33 De Pauw Plate-Glass Co. v. Alexandria, 152 Ind. 443; 52 N. E. 608.

34 White v. Smith, 117 Ala. 232; 23 So. 525; Topeka, etc., Co. v. Board, etc., 63 Kan. 351; 65 Pac. 660; Western Ranches v. Custer County, 28 Mont. 278; 72 Pac. 659;

Day v. Pelican, 94 Wis. 503; 69 N. W. 368.

35 Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells, 134 Cal. 471; 66 Pac. 657; Matter of Adams v. Board, etc., 154 N. Y. 619; 49 N. E. 144; Centennial, etc., Co. v. Juab County, 22 Utah 395; 62 Pac. 1024.

36 White v. Millbrook Township, 60 Mich. 532; 27 N. W. 674.

37 Peninsular Iron Co. v. Crystal Falls. 60 Mich. 79; 26 N. W. 840.

38 Pere Marquette R. R. v. Luding-ton, - Mich. -; 95 N. W. 417.