Municipal tax recovery claim governed by money had and received limitation, with Article 62 applying and Article 96 excluded.

A suit to recover house tax wrongfully collected by a municipality was treated as an equitable claim for money had and received, so limitation fell under Article 62 of the Limitation Act rather than Article 96. The Court held that the later discovery of any mistake did not change the applicability of Article 62 on these pleadings and on the nature of the claim. On that basis, Article 96 was held inapplicable, the revision succeeded, the trial court decree was set aside, and the suit for recovery of the tax amount was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for recovery of house-tax allegedly illegally collected by the Municipal Committee was governed by Article 62 or Article 96 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The suit was one to recover money collected by the Municipality as house-tax after the levy had been questioned as not recoverable from religious institutions. The decisive question was whether the claim fell within the well-known action for money had and received, in which money wrongfully obtained is treated in law as received for the plaintiff's use. The Court preferred the line of authority holding that a suit for recovery of municipal tax wrongfully collected is an equitable claim for money had and received and is covered by Article 62, rather than Article 96, which was treated as inapplicable to these facts. On the pleadings and the nature of the claim, the later discovery of any mistake was not material to the applicability of Article 96.

Conclusion: Article 62 applied and the suit was within the scope of that provision; Article 96 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the trial court decree was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the tax amount was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery of municipal tax wrongfully collected is governed by the limitation article applicable to money had and received, not by the article dealing with the particular cause of action relied upon by the plaintiff.

---