In order to raise an obligation to make restitution, it must appear, of course, that the money paid has actually been received by the defendant,2

116 Blatchf. (U. S. C. C.) 299.

2 First Nat. Bank of Americus v. The Mayor, 1881, 68 Ga. 119; 45 Am. Rep. 476; Otis v. People, 1902, 196 111. 542; 63 N. E. 1053; Thompson v. City of Detroit, 1897, 114 Mich. 502; 72 N. W. 320.

and that its retention is unjust. It follows that mere irregularities in the mode of assessment, not affecting the validity of the tax, or in the mode of collection, will not entitle the taxpayer to recover.1 In fact, the collection of a valid tax by means of an unlawful arrest, while it may amount to a tort by the officer, creates no quasi contractual obligation to make restitution.2 If, in the case of an irregular assessment, the taxpayer is compelled to pay more than his fair proportion of the tax, the excess may be recovered.3