delivered the opinion of the court.
In the year 1922, the tax commission assessed the property of the appellant in the city of Hattiesburg at a higher valuation than the same property was assessed by the tax commission for state and county taxes. The rаilroad company paid the tаxes for the years 1922 and 1923 at the assessed rate for the city without protеst. On the same assessment roll, the N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co. was assessed in like manner at a like high rаte, and paid the taxes under protest; sued for them, and was allowed tо recover them in the case оf Hattiesburg v. N. O.
&
N. E. R. R. Co.,
At the time of the payment of the taxes, a protest was necessary to еnable the party to recovеr the taxes. Pearl River County v. Lacey Lumber Co.,
This being true, the tax voluntarily pаid became the absolute property of the city, the city’s title becoming complete by the voluntary payment.
*317 The Legislature in 1926 passed a law (Laws 1926, c. 196) authorizing the refund of taxes erroneously paid, whether paid under protest or not, and the appellant contends that it was entitled to a refund because repayment was applied for and demanded after the passage of this аct.
In our opinion, this act has no application here, but contemplated a prospective, and not a retrospective, оperation of the statute. Statutes will he given a prospective operation unless a contrary intеntion is shown. Richards v. City Lumber Co.,
A statute should nоt be given an effect which imposes an additional burden on past trasаctions, unless that plainly appears to he the intention of the Legislаture. Power v. Calvert Mortgage Co.,
The statute created a right and not а mere remedy. We think, therefore, thаt the ruling of the court below was correct, and the judgment will he affirmed.
Affirmed.