By their bill in chancery plaintiffs seek to restrain the city of Detroit and its treasurer from enforcing payment of special assessments made against their resрective properties incident to widening and paving Chicago boulevard, to have their properties decreed not to be subject to assеssment for such widening or paving, and that the defendants be decreed to return to the respective plaintiffs the accrued installments paid by each оf them. Plaintiffs were granted the injunctive relief sought and defendants were decreed to refund to them the assessments they had paid for paving, but not for the widening оf the boulevard. The repayments decreed aggregate upwards of $30,000. Defendants have appealed.
The facts and circumstances out of which this litigation arises are the same as those in
Doherty
v.
City of Detroit,
Plaintiffs claim that the special assessments paid by them under an invalid levy after such assessments became a lien upon their properties may be recovered, -notwithstanding рayment was without protest. In asserting that such payments were involuntarily made and are recoverable they rely largely upon Newberry v.
City of Detroit,
The defendants сontend that these assessments were voluntarily paid by plaintiffs and cannot be recovered; and further, that in any event plaintiffs cannot recover because no provision is contained either in the Detroit charter or in the statutes of this State under which the city is bound to repay these special assessments. In this particular they cite
Reliance Auto. & Supply Co.
v.
City of Jackson,
There having been no material changes in the Detroit city charter in the meantime, under the decision in the
Newberry Case
these assеssments must be held to have been paid involuntarily. See, also,
Pere Marquette R. Co.
v.
Ludington,
As noted, defendants further contend that plaintiffs cannot recover because no provision for such recovery is cоntained in the Detroit city charter or in the statutory provisions of this State. We think a complete and conclusive answer to this contention is afforded by provisions of the Detroit charter and ordinance found in this record. The charter provides :
“The common council may also provide and ordain by оrdinance, that whenever it shall appear that any taxes or assessments have been illegally assessed or collected, the common cоuncil may, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members-elect, direct and cause the amount so collected to be refunded out of the contingent fund, or in сase it has not been collected, to vacate the assessment, and fix upon an amount, to be received in full of such tax or assess *495 ment, and no suсh action on the part of the council, under such ordinance shall in any way affect or invalidate any other tax or assessment assessed, levied, оr collected in said city. ’ ’ Detroit City Charter (1930 Revision), title 6, chap. 4, § 30.
An ordinance was adopted in conformity with the charter; and we think these provisions of thе charter and the ordinance should he construed to mean not only that taxes illegally assessed and involuntarily paid may be refunded or repaid to thоse from whom they have been wrongfully exacted but that there shall be repayment by the city. If payment of a tax is involuntary, in the absence of statutory prоvision to the contrary, it may be recovered, although there is no express statutory provision therefor.
“It is a well settled rule that ‘money got through impositiоn’ may be recovered back; and, as this court has said on several occasions, ‘the obligation to do justice rests upon all persons, natural and artificial, and if a county obtains the money or property of others without authority, the law, independent of any statute, will compel restitution or cоmpensation.’ ”
Ward
v.
Love Co.,
Reliance Auto. & Supply Co. v. Jackson, supra, which appellants cite in support of their contention, differs from the instant case by reason of the Detroit charter and ordinance provisions above quoted. The record in the Reliance Auto. Case did not disclose a provision of this character in the Jackson charter. This was noted by Mr. Justice Pottеr, who stated:
“Special assessments paid may not be recovered, though paid under protest, except in accordance with the statute. Our attention is called to no provision in the charter of the city of Jackson authorizing the payment of special assessments or any part thereоf *496 under protest and the recovery of moneys paid therefor by suit.”
The above should be construed to mean no more than that under the facts presented by the record in that particular case recovery could not be had for the special assessments paid. It may also be noted that there is a further material distinction between these two cases which is plainly pointed out in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Wiest. It is unnecessary to repeat it here.
While it seems difficult to reconcile it with appellant’s contention that the Detroit charter “contains no provision requiring the city to refund illеgal special assessments levied for local public improvements and voluntarily paid,” it is also here asserted by appellants that the provisiоns made in the Detroit charter and ordinance for refunding or repaying assessments illegally collected are exclusive of all other remedies; and “the courts have no jurisdiction to curtail the power invested in the' common council of said city by said provisions of its charter and ordinances to adjust and refund taxes and assessments illegally assessed and collected by the city.” The claim that such jurisdiction or power is vested exclusively in the Detroit cоmmon council cannot be sustained. Neither the charter nor any statutory provision in this State lodges in the council such exclusive authority. In the instant case, plaintiffs’ сlaims were first submitted to the council and rejected by it. The claims having thus been rejected, plaintiffs’ right to assert any appropriate remedy in the cоurts cannot be doubted.
The decree entered in the circuit court is affirmed, with costs to appellees.