City of Decatur v. Polytinsky

4 Citing cases

  1. Fairview Villa, Inc. v. City of Montgomery

    124 So. 2d 67 (Ala. 1960)   Cited 7 times

    Shelby County v. Oldham, 264 Ala. 626, 89 So.2d 106. An improvement assessment may not exceed the enhancement to specific property from special benefits to that particular lot, over and above the general enhancement to the property in the neighborhood. City of Tuscaloosa v. Hill, 194 Ala. 559, 69 So. 598; City of Decatur v. Polytinsky, 221 Ala. 540, 130 So. 66; City of Ozark v. Byrd, 225 Ala. 332, 143 So. 168; Code 1940, Tit. 37, § 524. A proper way to show the money value of special benefits by reason of improvements is to allow a witness to state the value of the specific property before and after the improvement.

  2. Anderson v. City of Vestavia Hills

    130 So. 2d 341 (Ala. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    Taylor v. Thompson, 271 Ala. 18, 122 So.2d 277. Where transcript of proceedings of municipality relating to such assessment is introduced in evidence the burden is upon the appealing property owner to prove the assessment is excessive. Montgomery v. Mott, 266 Ala. 422, 96 So.2d 766; Decatur v. Polytinsky, 221 Ala. 540, 136 So. 66. The following charges were refused to defendants:

  3. City of Ozark v. Thomas

    166 So. 424 (Ala. 1936)   Cited 1 times

    Its effect was not removed by instructions of the court to the jury. Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 416, 74 So. 454; 64 C.J. 90; Hair v. Little, 28 Ala. 236, 249; Barker v. State, 2 Ala. App. 92, 57 So. 88; Rogers v. Smith, 184 Ala. 506, 509, 63 So. 530. Charges 5 and 6, given for defendants, are incorrect and misleading. Constitution 1901, § 223; Code 1923, § 2209; Hamrick v. Albertville, 219 Ala. 465, 473, 122 So. 448; Stovall v. Jasper, 215 Ala. 300, 301, 110 So. 317; Tuscaloosa v. Hill, 14 Ala. App. 541, 69 So. 486; Birmingham. v. Emond, 229 Ala. 346, 157 So. 64; Decatur v. Polytinsky, 221 Ala. 540, 130 So. 66; Ex parte Hill, 194 Ala. 559, 69 So. 598; Hood v. Bessemer, 213 Ala. 225, 104 So. 325; Duke v. Anniston, 5 Ala. App. 348, 60 So. 447; Decatur v. Brock, 170 Ala. 149, 54 So. 209. J. E. Acker, of Ozark, for appellees.

  4. City of Birmingham v. Emond

    157 So. 64 (Ala. 1934)   Cited 12 times
    In City of Birmingham v. Emond, 229 Ala. 346, 157 So. 64, it was held that the statutes (Code, § 2190 and General Acts 1927, p. 764, § 19) provide that a due assessment for public improvement, according to the decisions, be made in the name of the owner, and not, as contended, in the name of a mortgagee.

    It follows that appellant's petition for writ of mandamus be and is denied; its appeal and assignment of errors do not avail for reversal; and the judgment as to it is affirmed and the costs of appeal are adjudged against the city. Section 2209, Code, as amended by Acts 1927, p. 768, § 38; City of Decatur v. Polytinsky, 221 Ala. 540, 130 So. 66. The cross-assignments of error of appellee being waived, the judgment of the trial court as to Emond is affirmed. Affirmed; mandamus denied.