Protest will not make an otherwise voluntary payment involuntary.4 On the other hand, protest is not an essential element of compulsion.1 The law does not require a man to protest when a protest obviously would be useless {ante, Sec. 221). Protest may, however, be evidence of the payor's attitude,2 and it has been held that in the absence of a protest interest may be recovered only from the time of demand or action brought,3, instead of from the time of payment, as it otherwise may be.4

1 Goddard v. Seymour, 1862, 30 Conn. 394; Jackson v. Town of Union, 1909, 82 Conn. 266; 73 Atl. 773; Supervisors v. Manny, 1870, 56 111. 160; Commrs. v. Armstrong, 1883, 91 Ind. 528; Hinds v.Town-ship of Belvidere, 1895, 107 Mich. 664; 65 N. W. 544; Long v. Village of Dundee, 1909, 159 Mich. 320; 123 N. W. 1098.

2Foss v. Whitehouse, 1901, 94 Me. 491; 48 Atl. 109; Dunbar v. City of Boston, 1873, 112 Mass. 75.

3 Fletcher Paper Co. v. City of Alpena, 1910, 160 Mich. 462; 125 N. W. 405. See also Jackson p. Town of Union, 1909, 82 Conn. 266; 73 Atl. 773, 774.

4 Railroad Co. v. Commrs., 1878, 98 U. S. 541; Dear v. Varnum, 1889, 80 Cal. 86; 22 Pac. 76; Monaghan v. Lewis, 1905, 5 Pennewill (Del.) 218; 59 Atl. 948; Conkling v. City of Springfield, 1890, 132 111. 420; 24 N. E. 67; Benson v. Monroe, 1851, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 125; 54 Am. Dec. 716; Robins v. Latham, 1896, 134 Mo. 466; 36 S. W. 33; Peebles v. City of Pittsburg, 1882, 101 Pa. St. 304; 47 Am. Rep. 714. But see Herold v. Kahn, 1908, 159 Fed. 608 ; 86 C. C. A. 598, in which Judge Gray said (p. 612): "The proper administration of the fiscal affairs of the government, require that the payment of taxes should not be delayed by disputes as to their legality, but that the taxes should first be paid and all questions in regard to them be determined in suits brought for their refunding. It is a wise policy, therefore, that encourages the payment under protest of disputed taxes. Though there is some conflict in the dicta of the Supreme Court, we think that the true doctrine is that, when taxes are paid under protest that they are being illegally exacted, or with notice that the payor contends that they are illegal and intends to institute suit to compel their repayment, a sufficient foundation for such a suit has been established. Chesebrough v. U. S., 192 U. S. 253; City of Phila. v. Collector, 5 Wall. 720, 731." See also Thomas v. City of Burlington, 1886, 69 la. 140; 28 N. W. 480; Dunnell Mfg. Co. v. Newell, 1886, 15 R. I. 233; 2 Atl. 766.

Sec. 245. (IV) Demand And Notice

Demand is not a condition precedent to the right to recover void taxes paid to a municipality under compulsion;5 but if it is desired to hold the collecting officer personally responsible he should be notified, at the time the tax is paid, or at least before the money is turned over by him, that such is the intention of the payor.6