In a number of States the return of illegal, excessive, and void taxes is expressly authorized by statute.7 Such statutes are regarded as mandatory, and public officers and boards may be compelled by mandamus or similar proceeding to execute their provisions.1 Some of the statutes are by their terms limited in operation to taxes paid or collected under protest.2 Where no such limitation is expressed, proof of protest or coercion would seem to be unnecessary;3 but there is authority to the contrary.4

1 Meek v. MeClure, 1875, 49 Cal. 623, (not necessary if officer has notice of illegality); Jenks v. Lima Township, 1861, 17 Ind. 326, (protest evidence that payment made under duress; cf. Town of Ligonier v. Ackerman, 1874, 46 Ind. 552 ; 15 Am. Rep. 323) ; Howard v. Augusta, 1882, 74 Me. 79; Boston Glass Co. v. Boston. 1842, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 181 ; Atwell v. Zeluff, 1872, 26 Mich. 118; Cox v. Welcher, 1888, 68 Mich. 263 ; 36 N. W. 69 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 339; De Graff v. County of Ramsey, 1891, 46 Minn. 319 ; 48 N. W. 1135.

2 See Yates v. Royal Ins. Co., 1902, 200 111. 202; 65 N. E. 726; Jenks v. Lima Township, 1861, 17 Ind. 326.

3 Boston Glass Co. v. Boston, 1842, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 181; Atwell v. Zeluff, 1872, 26 Mich. 118.

4Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 1872, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 75; Boston, etc., R. Co. v. State, 1885, 63 N. H. 571; 4 Atl. 571; Galveston County v. Galveston Gas Co., 1889, 72 Tex. 509; 10 S. W. 583.

5 Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester, 1886, 101 N. Y. 240; 4 N. E. 272 ; AEtna Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 1897, 153 N. Y. 331; 47 N. E. 593.

6 Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 1872, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 75; City of Vicks-burg v. Butler, 1878, 56 Miss. 72. But see Ford v. Holden, 1859, 39 N. H. 143; Frye v. Lockwood, 1825, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 454.

7 White v. Smith, 1898, 117 Ala. 232; 23 So. 525; Hayes v. County of Los Angeles, 1893, 99 Cal. 74; 33 Pac. 766; Barber v. County of Jackson, 1891, 40 I11. App. 42; Board of Commrs. of Pulaski County v. Senn, 1888, 117 Ind. 410; 20 N. E. 276; Lauman v. County of Des Moines, 1870, 29 la. 310; People v. Whemple, 1892, 133 N. Y. 617; 30 N. E. 1002; Matter of Adams v. Supervisors, 1898, 154 N. Y. 619; 49 N. E. 144.

1 White v. Smith, 1898, 117 Ala. 232; 23 So. 525; Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells, 1901, 134 Cal. 471; 66 Pac. 657; Curtis v. Pocahontas County, 1887, 72 la. 151; 33 N. W. 616; People ex rel. v. Supervisors of Otsego County, 1873, 51 N. Y. 401; In re L. E. Waterman Co., 1901, 33 Misc. Rep. 569; 68 N. Y. Supp. 892.

2 Knowles v. Boston, 1880, 129 Mass. 551; Western Ranches v. Custer County, 1903, 28 Mont. 278; 72 Pac. 659; Bankers Life Assn. v. Commrs., 1901, 61 Neb. 202; 85 N. W. 54; N. C. R. Co. v. Commrs. of Alamance, 1877, 77 N. C. 4; Centennial Eureka Min. Co. v. Juab County, 1900; 22 Utah 395; 62 Pac. 1024.

» Pacific Coast Co. p. Wells, 1901, 134 Cal. 471; 66 Pac. 657; City of Indianapolis v. Vajen, 1887, 111 Ind. 240; 12 N. E. 311; Robinson v. City of Burlington, 1878, 50 la. 240; Matter of Adams v. Supervisors, 1898, 154 N. Y. 619; 49 N. E. 144, (but see Matter of McCue v. Supervisors, 1900, 162 N. Y. 235; 56 N. E. 627.

4 Matter of McCue v. Supervisors, 1900, 162 N. Y. 235; 56 N. E. 627.