
    [No. 5475.]
    THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. HESTER QUACKENBUSH, ESTHER QUACKENBUSH et al.
    Stbeet Assessment—Desceiption of Peopebty.—The assessment must show the locality of the street assessed, and if a diagram is used it must contain such references as will enable the description of the premises to be understood.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
    Action to recover a street assessment.
    Relative to the description of the property the Court found as follows:
    That on the 17th day of May, A. D. 1871, the Superintendent of Streets, Highways, and Squares of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, did, in his official capacity, and not otherwise, issue an assessment to cover the expenses of the work hereinafter mentioned. That said assessment contained no description of the property sought to be charged, except the following diagram:
    
      
      
    
    Which diagram did not show any of the points of the compass; that there was an explanation printed upon said diagram as follows : “The figures on this diagram in black represent feet and fractions of feet, and those in red the numbers of lots ”; that the lot numbered five is the lot mentioned and described in the complaint. That said assessment was in other respects as required by law.
    Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.
    
      Pringle & Hayne, for Appellants.
    The assessment does not contain a sufficient description of the lot. Lot No. 5 is the lot in question. No points of the compass are given, and it is impossible to say on which side of Polk Street, or on which side of Locust Avenue is Lot 5. (Keane v. Canovan, 21 Cal. 301.)
    
      W. C. Burnett and J. B. Weller, for Respondent.
   By the Court :

The appeal is from the judgment, and the only question necessary to be considered is, whether the findings support the judgment. It is found by the Court below that the assessment, upon which the proceedings are founded, contained no description of the property sought to be charged, except such as was contained in the “ diagram ”—a copy of which is in the findings. The resolution of intention was for the construction of sidewalks from Turk Street to Grove Street. Now, the diagram, as set forth in the findings, does not show the locality of these streets, or either of them, nor does it contain any other reference by which the location or description of the premises could be seen. It is possible that the diagram, set forth in the findings is not the entire diagram as prepared in the superintendent’s office; but, if this be so, the only portion we can consider is that sent up with the record.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to render judgment for the defendants on the findings. Remittitur forthwith.  