If A is obliged to pay B's debt in order to protect A's property interests, A's payment is not voluntary and he may recover from B.1 If the debt which B owes, and upon which B is primortgagee a party to the suit, but the interest of the second mortgagee had been sold for taxes and had been bought in by the state, the first mortgagee cannot after buying in the realty and paying to the state the amount for which such second mortgage had been sold with costs, recover such amount from such assignee.8 In order to enable A to recover from B for paying a debt of B's, which, was a lien upon A's property, the lien must be a valid debt of B's, and must also be a lien upon A's property. Thus, if a grantee takes by a warranty deed, with a covenant against incumbrances, he cannot recover from his grantor for payment of a void tax assessed against such property.9 So, A held the legal title to realty, and A, B and C each had a third of the beneficial interest therein. C bought in the property at a tax sale, taking a deed thereto in his wife's name. X, a judgment creditor of A, redeemed the land to protect his interest. X cannot recover from B, since one co-owner cannot acquire interests as against another at a tax sale, and C's right to recover from B for his share of the taxes thus paid was restricted to the balance, if any, due on the accounts of each as to the property owned in common.10 If A induces B to enter into a contract for the sale of land by false representations as to the identity of A, B being induced to believe that he is dealing with X, and B avoids such contract, A cannot recover the amount which he has paid to redeem such land from a tax sale.11 A conveyed realty to B, who took possession and paid taxes. Subsequently the conveyance was set aside on the theory that it was intended as a will. It was held that equity and good conscience required payment of such taxes, and that slight circumstances were sufficient from which to infer a promise to pay,12 implying a promise to pay recovery could be had.

Co., 76 la. 660; 39 N. W. 201; Armstrong v. Keith, 3 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 153; 20 Am. Dec. 131; Wheeler v. Young. 143 Mass. 143; 9 N. E. 531; Rosemond v. Register Co., 62 Minn. 374; 64 N. W. 925; Grand Island Mercantile Co. v. McMeans, 60 Neb. 373; 83 N. W. 172; Albany v. Mc-Namara, 117 N. Y. 168; 6 L. R. A. 212; 22 N. E. 931.

2 Rosemond v. Register Co., 62 Minn. 374; 64 N. W. 925.

3 Grand Island Mercantile Co. v, McMeans, 60 Neb. 373; 83 N. W, 172.

4 Wabash R. R. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179.

5 Jones v. Green, 129 Mich. 203; 95 Am. St. Rep. 433; 88 N. W. 1047.

6 Little Bros. v. Phosphate Co., -Fla. -; 32 So. 808; Allen v. Bobo, 81 Miss. 443; 33 So. 288.

1 Exall v. Partridge, 8 T. R. 308; Post v. Gilbert, 44 Conn. 9; Gleason niarily liable, is a lien upon A's property, and A is obliged to pay such lien to protect his interest in the property, he may recover from B.2 Thus, where property subject to an assessment was conveyed, and the grantor had promised as a part of the consideration to pay the assessments due thereon, and he does not make such payments, and by reason thereof the grantee is obliged to pay such assessments, he may recover from the grantor, on the theory of an implied contract in an action for money paid, and need not sue on the express contract to pay the assessment.3 So, if a court has by decree found that A is holding stock for B, subject to a lien in favor of A for advances which he has made to B, on account of such stock, A may recover from B for assessments made upon the stock by the corporation and paid by A to the corporation to preserve his interest in it, and his right to recover from B is not defeated by his taking an appeal from such decree.4 So if a lessee to protect his interest is obliged to pay taxes on the leased realty he may recover from his lessor.5 So if a lessee covenants in the lease to pay taxes on the leased realty, and does not do so, the lessor may pay such taxes and recover from the lessee or his assignee, even after the lessor has conveyed his interest by a deed containing a covenant against encumbrances.6 The party paying such liens cannot recover unless the payment is necessary to protect his interests. So a mortgagee who pays taxes on the realty mortgaged to enable him to negotiate his mortgage, and who subsequently transfers the mortgage to the mortgagors, releasing the mortgage debt, cannot recover from them the amount thus expended as taxes.7 The tax thus paid must be on the property in which the person paying it owns an interest or he cannot recover. So where a first mortgagee foreclosed and made the assignee of a second v. Dyke, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 390.

2Gleason v. Dyke, 22 Pick.

(Mass.) 390; Hunt v. Amidon, 4

Hill (N. Y.) 345; 40 Am. Dec. 283.

3 Post v. Gilbert, 44 Conn. 9.

4 Irvine v. Angus, 93 Fed. 629; 35 C. C. A. 501.

5 Vermont, etc.. Ry. v. Ry., 63 Vt. 1; 10 L. R. A. 562; 21 Atl. 262; 731.

6 Wills v. Summers, 45 Minn. 90; 47 N. W. 463.

7Kersenbrock v. Muff, 29 Neb. 530; 45 N. W. 778.

8 Canadian, etc.. Co. v. Boas, 136 Cal. 419; 69 Pac. 18.

9 Balfour v. Whitman, 89 Mich. 202; 50 N. W. 744.

10Lindley v. Snell, 80 la. 103; 45 NT. W. 726.

11 Ellsworth v. Randall, 78 la.

141; 16 Am. St. Rep. 425; 42 N. W. 629.

12 Smith v. Roundtree. 185 111. 219; 56 N. E. 1130; affirming 85 111. App. 161. (This case, however, falls short of holding that in the absence of some circumstances im.