In Himmelman v. Bateman , 50 Cal. 11, the depth of the lot was omitted from the record of the diagram. That is not this case. The other cases cited do not touch this question at all. The work was " from Franklin to Gough." Any surveyor could locate these lots. Anyperson in the city could do so. There can be no mistake as to what land was intended to be assessed. The statute only requires that the diagram shall show the relative location of the lot to the work done; and certainly the description must be sufficient if it enables the owner from an inspection to determine whether his land was assessed or not, and if so, for what sum. (Blackwell on Tax Titles, p. 126.)
OPINION THE COURT
The assessment and diagram, as recorded, contain no sufficient description of the premises--there being a material variance between the diagram as recorded and that attached to the original assessment.
Order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.