
    [S. F. No. 7178.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    WILLIAM H. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. SIDNEY J. PRINGLE, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. FRENCH SAVINGS BANK, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. CLARENCE C. BURR, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. GEORGE C. BOARDMAN, Jr., Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. MARY N. ALLYNE, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. MARY M. ALLYNE, LUCY H. ALLYNE, EDITH W. ALLYNE, and WILLIAM H. WHITE, Plaintiffs, Respondents, and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant,-Appellant, and Respondent. FRANK A. SOMERS, as Executor of the Last Will of Harvey C. Somers, Deceased, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. THE SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. JOSEPHINE E. PRESTON, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. GEORGE F. LYON, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. ARITA MOORE, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent. EDWIN SCHWAB, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Appellant, and Respondent.
    
      [S. F. No. 7179.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7180.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    
      [S. F. No. 7181.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7182.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7183.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7184.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7185.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7186.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    
      [S. F. No. 7187.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7188.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7219.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    [S. F. No. 7220.
    In Bank.
    December 1, 1914.]
    Taxation—San Francisco—Suspension of Dollar Limit.—On the authority of Josselyn v. San Francisco, ante, p. 436, the judgments, in so far as they are in favor of plaintiffs, are affirmed; and the part of said judgments from which the plaintiffs appealed are reversed, with instructions to the trial court to amend its conclusions of law, in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion in Josselyn v. San Fran cisco, and to enter judgments in favor of the plaintiffs for the amounts prayed for in the complaints respectively.
    APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.
    The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Josselyn v. San Francisco, mite, p. 436.
    Drown, Leicester & Drown, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Percy V. Long, City Attorney, and Jesse H. Steinhart, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
   THE COURT.

The plaintiffs herein sued to recover the aggregate amounts of certain taxes respectively levied for three specific purposes by the defendant’s board of supervisors for the fiscal year 1907-8. These taxes had been paid by plaintiffs under protest. The taxes so levied are the same as those involved in the case of Josselyn v. San Francisco, (S. F. No. 6074), ante, p. 436, [143 Pac. 705], decided by this court on October 2, 1914. The court below gave judgments therein in favor of plaintiffs for the aggregate amounts paid by them on account of two of the items of taxation involved, but held that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the further amounts paid by them on account of the special tax levied under Ordinance Number 233 (New Series) for the repair, sprinkling, and sweeping of streets.

The defendant has appealed from the judgments thus rendered in favor of plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs have also appealed from said judgments in so far as the same denied to said plaintiffs the right to recover the amounts so paid by them for a tax purporting to have been levied for the repair, sprinkling, and sweeping of streets.

Both sets of appeals have been submitted to this court on stipulation and on the transcript and briefs in the aforesaid Josselyn case (S. F. No. 6074) ; and in accordance with the opinion and determination of this court in that case, the judgments herein of the lower court, in so far as they are in favor of plaintiffs, are affirmed; and the parts of said judgments from which the plaintiffs appealed are reversed, with instructions to the trial court to amend its conclusions of law therein, in accordance with the views expressed by this court in its opinion given and made on October 2, 1914, in the aforesaid case of Josselyn v. San Francisco, (S. F. No. 6074), and to enter judgments herein in favor of plaintiffs for the amounts prayed for in the complaints respectively.  