3094 ARTICLE 81

permit the defendant to interpose any defense which he might have raised
by way of appeal from the assessment upon which such tax was levied.

Cited in Fid. & Guar. Fire Corp. v. Tax Com., 172 Md. 665.

This section referred to in construing sec. 162. Tidewater Oil Co. v. Anne Arundel
Co., 168 Md. 495.

Limitations.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 93. 1912, sec. 88. 1904, sec. 86. 1888, sec. 83. 1852, ch. 75, sec. 4.
1874, ch. 483, sec. 82. 1918, ch. 268. 1929, ch. 226, sec. 151. 1933 (Special Sess.), ch. 88.

160. All County or City taxes of every kind for which no other period
of limitation is prescribed by law shall be collected within four years after
they shall have become due, or else shall be utterly barred; and no such
taxes shall be assessed or collected after said period; provided (a) that
when collectors shall have failed to collect such taxes and receivers or
trustees have within said period been appointed to complete the collection
thereof, the period for collection thereof shall be extended for two years
from the time of the appointment of such receivers or trustees, and (b)
that any action at law or suit in equity for collection of such taxes or for
sale of property to pay the same or for the enforcement of any lien there-
for, may, if instituted within the period hereinabove prescribed be prose-
cuted as if this section had never been passed, and any judgment or decree
therein may be enforced or renewed as other judgments or decrees.

This section has no application to assessments for sidewalks in Baltimore City.
Meaning of "remedy." St. Paul Bldg. Co. v. Baltimore, 149 Md. 686.

Sec. 93 (old) referred to—see notes to secs. 72, 150 and 199, and to art. 93, sec. 123.
Thompson v. Henderson, 155 Md. 669.

As to limitations re tax sales in Montgomery County, see art. 57, sec. 17.

As to collateral inheritance taxes, see secs. 114 and 127.

A promise within four years by owner of property to pay taxes will remove bar
of statute of limitations as against a judgment creditor; contra, as against a bona fide
purchaser or mortgagee. Georgetown College v. Perkins, 74 Md. 74. And see Perkins v.
Dyer, 71 Md. 422.

Land held by a life tenant, who removes bar of the statute as to taxes by a subse-
quent promise, may be proceeded against although remaindermen are not parties to
such subsequent promise. Duvall v. Perkins, 77 Md. 591.

This section has no application where collector could not resort to his remedies for
summary enforcement of payment because equity had taken jurisdiction over property,
and this is true although collector's petition in equity court is not filed within four
years. Hebb v. Moore, 66 Md. 168. Gould v. Baltimore, 58 Md. 51. And see Baldwin
v. State, 89 Md. 598. Cf. Perkins v. Gaither, 70 Md. 135.

This section has no application to assessments for paving streets. Moale v. Baltimore,
61 Md. 243; Gould v. Baltimore, 59 Md. 379. And see Gould v. Baltimore, 58 Md. 51.

Since this section provides that "the parties from whom such taxes may be demanded"
may plead this section, sureties cannot plead it in bar of a suit on their bond growing
out of failure of a guardian to pay taxes. Baldwin v. State, use Hull, 89 Md. 597.

Unless statute is pled the land may be sold although this section is applicable, and
where property is sold but subsequently redeemed and there is no exception to allow-
ance of taxes in auditor's account on ground of the statute, the taxes are properly
allowed. Baden v. Perkins, 77 Md. 467.

This section withdraws a suit for taxes from the operation of art. 57, sec. 1. This
section held not to be applicable to city of Baltimore—see act of 1898, ch. 123 (Balti-
more City Charter), sec. 1124. Gunther v. Baltimore, 55 Md. 461.

The statute of limitations begins to run immediately after the taxes have been levied.
Condon v. Maynard, 71 Md. 604. And see Findlay v. Darnall, 143 Md. 294.

This section referred to in deciding that county commissioners could only levy in
any one year for taxes for that year, and not for past years. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v.
Wicomico County, 93 Md. 130 (and see Wicomico County v. Bancroft, 203 U. S. 117).
As to limitations, see art. 57.

Refund of Taxes.

1929, ch. 226, sec. 152. 1935, ch. 407, sec. 152. 1937, ch. 469, sec. 152.

161. Whenever any person shall claim to have erroneously or mis-
takenly paid into the Treasury of the State more money for taxes or other