The specific charge of inequality before the law that these appellants make is that the city has been relieved of its just proportion of the cost of the park, and that portion has been laid, together with their own burden, on these appellants. In their brief they say that the jury should first have estimated the benefit to the city at large and should have charged only the balance of the cost as benefits against the private property, that the assessment of one dollar against the city was no assessment at all.
If the case was given to the jury under proper instructions, whatever opinion we may have as to the fact, we can not say as a matter of law that an assessment of merely nominal benefit was unlawful.
See also Kansas City vs. Bacon 147 Mo. 259, in which this language is found:
“In the absence of misleading instructions or evidence of misconduct a verdict of one dollar against the city at large is not as a matter of law ground to disturb a verdict.”
In this case there was an assessment on property holders of $600,000, and of $1.00 against the city.
And:
Kansas City vs. Smart, 128 Mo. 272, where there was an assessment of $140,000 against the benefit district and $1.00 against the city.
4
Park Law of Indianapolis. Chap. 231. Acts of Indiana, 1911