
    [Department One.
    May 8, 1883.]
    J. S. DYER, Respondent, v. S. MARTINOVICH et al., Appellants.
    Stbeet Assessment.—An assessment was made for the grading of Leavenworth Street from Green to Union Street in the city and county of San Francisco. Between Green and Union Streets there was a small street thirty-five feet in width, terminating at one end in Leavenworth Street, and known as Lincoln Street. The cost of the work in front of Lincoln Street was assessed against the lots fronting on that street. In the assessment, Lincoln Street is designated by its name, but it is also numbered and referred to as a lot having a frontage of thirty-five feet on Leavenworth Street, and chargeable with a certain amount as its proportion of the cost of the work. On the diagram attached to the assessment there is a space marked Lincoln Street with a number upon it corresponding to the number in the assessment. Held, that the assessment was properly made, that Lincoln Street is not to be regarded as one of the lots assessed, and that the reference to it was merely for the purpose of a distribution of the cost of the work as between the lots liable therefor.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
    
      J. C. Bates, for Appellant.
    The assessment is too large and therefore void. (Prescott v. Prescott, 62 Me. 431; Glidden v. Chase, 35 Me. 90; Boyden v. 
      Moore, 5 Mass. 371; Dyer v. Chase, 52 Cal. 440; Donnelly v. Howard, 60 Cal. 291.
    C. H. Parker, for Bespondent.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is from a judgment entered against defendants in an action on a street assessment.

No objection is made to the assessment and diagram other than that hereinafter stated. “The diagram and assessment show that Lincoln Street is a small street thirty-five feet wide, terminating in a main (Leavenworth) street. Lot 7, in suit, is assessed for Lincoln Street, but the assessment shows on its face that Lincoln Street is named and designated as lot 6, and assessed for $544.32, the same as other lots, except that other lots are assessed to unknown.’ ”

The assessment consists in two distributions of the amounts to be paid. In the first, the lots of private proprietors fronting on Leavenworth Street are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and “Lincoln Street” is numbered as lot 6. This is folloAved by an “ assessment against Lincoln Street for its proportion of the above-named expense; thirty-five feet grading,” etc. This last consists of a distribution of the expense imposed by the statute upon the property fronting on Lincoln Street to the lots of property fronting on that street.

The assessment is to be read as a Avhole, and from this it appears that the land used as Lincoln Street is not assessed against “ Mr. Lincoln,” or against “ Lincoln Street ” as a person. The insertion in the first part of the assessment of Lincoln Street as “lot 6” may be treated as surplusage, or as merely indicating that the width of Lincoln Street on Leavenworth is not held in private OAvnership. Bead together, the íavo parts of the assessment show that the property fronting on Leavenworth, and also fronting on Lincoln, was properly assessed.

Judgment affirmed.  