Here,  perhaps,  is  the  first  intimation  that  an  action  may  be  main-
tained against  the  town,  and  of  the  principle  on  which  it  can  be  main-
tained. It  is  that  money  has  been  actually  brought  into  their  treasury
by  their  unauthorized,  and  of  course  illegal,  act,  which  in  equity  and
good  conscience  they  cannot  retain ;  and  this,  not  for  the  damages
caused  by  the  seizure  and  sacrifice  of  property  distrained,  and  not  for
the  expenses  incurred,  but  simply  for  the  money,  which  they  have
actually  received  without  right.  Such  a  remedy,  if  it  exist  at  all,  can
upon  principle  apply  only  to  a  case  where  a  town  or  city  levy  money
for  their  own  use  without  authority,  and  not  where  they  or  their  offi-
cers assess  and  collect  money  for  the  state,  county,  or  school  district.
In  1824,  an  act  was  passed  (St.  1823,  c.  138,  §  5)  having  an  impor-


Ch.  7)  ACTIONS   TO   RECOVER   DAMAGES   OR  MONEY.  36]

tant  bearing  on  this  subject.  It  provides  that  the  assessors  of  cities,
towns,  districts,  parishes,  or  rehgioiis  societies  shall  not  be  made  re-
sponsible for  the  assessment  of  any  tax,  when  thereto  required  by  the
constituted  authorities  thereof;  but  the  liability,  if  any,  shall  rest  sole-
ly with  said  city,  etc.,  and  the  assessors  shall  be  responsible  only  for
their  own  integrity  and  fidelity.  This  provision  was  extended  to  as-
sessments on  school  districts  by  St.  1833,  c.  166,  and  was  re-enacted
in  Rev.  St.  c.  7,  §  U.
