
    Charles Waite et als. vs. The Inhabitants of Princeton.
    Washington,
    1875.
    January 11, 1877.
    
      Tax.
    
    If one wlio is properly assessed for certain personal property in a town, is also assessed therein for certain other personal property alleged to he taxable therein, but which in fact is taxable in an adjoining town, and pays the tax upon the last mentioned property under protest, an action does not lie against the town therefor. His proper remedy is by application for abatement.
    The same rule is applicable to the taxation of real estate.
    On EXCEPTIONS.
    Assumpsit for money bad and received, and account annexed for $1,395.73, paid under protest, for taxes in the town of Princeton, assessed on a saw mill and stock of logs for the mill from 1864 to 1872, inclusive. Date of writ, August 19, 1873.
    
      Plea, general issue and statute of limitations.
    The plaintiffs, residents of Calais, were properly assessed for a store and lot and stock of goods'in the defendant town.
    There was evidence tending to show that the mill did not lie within the limits of Princeton, and that the logs were taxable in Calais.
    After the evidence was out, a nonsuit, pro forma, was entered; and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Granger de G. F. Granger, for the plaintiffs.
    
      F. A. Pike (& A. MeWichol, for the defendants.
   Appleton, C. J.

The plaintiffs reside in Calais, but have- a store and transact business in Princeton. They bring this action to recover back moneys paid under protest for taxes assessed on real and personal property not legally taxable to them in the defendant town.

The point relied on in defense is, that assuming they were not liable to be taxed for' the property, of the taxation of which they complain, their remedy is not by suit, but by application to the county commissioners.

The plaintiffs, having a store and a stock of goods in the defendant town, were liable to be there taxed. If they were improperly taxed for logs, their remedy is by appeal to the county commissioners. Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Maine, 404. Hemingway v. Machias, 33 Maine, 445. Howe v. Boston, 7 Cush. 273. The same rule applies to the erroneous taxation of real estate. Salmond v. Hanover, 13 Allen, 119. The questions here raised were fully determined in Gilpatrick v. Saco, 57 Maine, 277.

Exceptions overruled.

Nonsuit confirmed.

Walton, Dickerson, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ\, concurred.  