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.
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:
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.
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.