
    Charles S. Weld vs. City of Bangor.
    
      Sank stock — collection of taxes on.
    
    The plaintiff, a non-resident of Bangor, was duly assessed therein, upon his shares of stock in the First National Bank. After legal demand, the plaintiff refusing to pay the tax upon the warrant of the collector of the city, issued April, 1870, was duly arrested hy the sheriff of the county in the following May, for the tax, which the plaintiff then paid under protest, together with costs to the officer and he to the city treasurer. In assumpsit to recover the money thus paid, Seld, (1) That the collection of such tax is to he enforced in accordance with the general law; and (2) that c. 209 of the Pub. Laws of 1868 related exclusively to the assessment, and in nowise affected the collection of taxes duly assessed under previously existing laws.
    ON REPORT.
    Assumpsit for money bad and received. Writ dated May 31, 1870.
    Tbe plaintiff, during no part oí tbe last twenty years, bas been a resident of Bangor or bad any property taxed there, except in 1867, when, without bis consent, be was in due and legal form, assessed there upon bis shares of stock in tbe First National Bank, a banking institution established under tbe laws of tbe United States, located in Bangor.
    After legal demand upon him, tbe plaintiff, refusing to pay tbe tax upon the warrant of tbe collector of tbe city issued in April, 1870, was duly arrested by tbe sheriff of Penobscot county on May '26,1870, for tbe tax, when be paid it, under protest, together with costs of arrest to the sheriff -who paid it to tbe city treasurer. Tbe action is to recover tbe money thus paid, and if not maintainable, tbe plaintiff to be nonsuit.
    
      ■J. A. Peters P. A. Wilson, for tbe plaintiff.
    Chapter 126, Pub. Laws of 1867, made tbe tax assessable. Packard v. Lewiston, 65 Maine, 456.
    Chapter 209, Pub. Laws of 1868, repealed c. 126 and “ all acts and parts of acts inconsistent therewith.”
    
      If tlie plaintiff bad paid before tlie repeal be could not recover back. Abbott v. Bangor, 56 Maine, 310.
    Wlien tlie tax was enforced there was no law to proceed on, and it ivas as if no law bad been passed on tlie subject.
    Such is the spirit of tlie decisions. Plantation No. 9 v. Bean, 36 Maine, 359; s. c. 36 Maine, 365; Williams v. Go. Commissioners, 35 Maine, 345 ; Coffin v. Bieh, 45 Maine, 507.
    No vested right in Bangor, none in contract, for there was no contract; none in property, for there was no property; merely a legislative power granted to get property, and the power lost before the property was obtained. A statute obligation dissolved by statute.
    The repeal had same effect as if it occurred before the assessment. B. Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co. 10 How. 511.
    
      H. C. Q-oodenow, city solicitor, for the defendants.
   Appleton, C. J.

The tax in question was duly and legally assessed under the provisions of the act of 1867, c. 126. Packard v. Lewiston, 55 Maine, 456; Abbott v. Bangor, 56 Maine, 310.

The collection of this tax, like that of all other taxes duly assessed, is to bo enforced in accordance with the general laws of the State on that subject.

The act of March 6, 1868, c. 209, relates exclusively to the assessment of taxes. The rules prescribed vary from those of the act of 1867, c. 126. The act is prospective in its operation. It looks only to the future. “ All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.” That is, a new rule as to the future assessment of taxes is established, nothing more.

The act in no way affects the collection of taxes, which have been duly assessed under previously existing law. It does not pro-» hibit the enforcement of a tax as in Augusta v. North, 57 Maine, 392. It in no way alludes to the collection of taxes.

Had the tax been paid as in Abbott v. Bangor, 56 Maine, 310, its repayment could not have been enforced. The tax being duly assessed, and constituting a portion of what the plaintiff Avas equitably bound to pay toward the public burdens, it can hardly be supposed that the legislature intended to relieve him from a just liability. By a long neglect to pay his taxes, the plaintiff is not to be in a better condition than if he had promptly done his duty.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

Cutting, Kent, Walton, BaRRoays, and DaNforth, JJ., concurred.

Dickerson, J., did not concur.  