and the resolution directing the improvement to be made in terms provided for "macadamizing the street." The contract for the improvement, and the assessment, both called for macadamizing the street and the sidewalk. It is a well established principle that the contract must be for the work authorized by the resolution of intention and no more. If more is called for by the contract the contract is void as to the excess, and if that which is authorized to be done cannot be segregated from the unauthorized excess, and the assessment is for the whole, the assessment is void in toto so that, if the term "street" in a resolution authorizing a "street" to be macadamized, does not include the term "sidewalk," so as to authorize the macadamizing of the sidewalk, it follows that a resolution directing a "street" to be macadamized is not authority for macadamizing a "sidewalk," and a decision holding that a resolution directing a street to be macadamized is not authority for macadamizing the sidewalk, must necessarily include the corollary that the term "street" does not include the sidewalks. Such was the decision in Himmelmann v. Satterlee, supra. In Baudry v. Valdez, 32 Cal. 276, it was said: "The question whether the term 'macadamizing' also includes 'curbing' is settled by the statute under which the parties having the matter in charge were working. The second section prescribes what street improvements the city council shall have power to cause to be made. Each kind is separately named and described. 'Macadamizing' is named as one, and 'curbing' as another. Hence, whether the former might or might not, under other circumstances, include the latter, is not the question. Does it, within the meaning of the statute under which the parties were working is the question, and it is clear that it does not, for they are there mentioned as different and distinct kinds of street work, which circumstance shows that in the sense in which the former term is used in the statute, it does not include the latter."

We conclude therefore, that, while the term "street," in ordinary legal signification, includes all parts of the waythe roadway, the gutters, curbing and sidewalks-still in statutes and municipal ordinances, directing the grading and paving and improvement of urban ways, the word "street" is often, and, indeed, generally understood to mean the roadway only, that is, the part of the way intended especially for the use of horsemen and vehicles, lying between the curbs and sidewalks. [See Elliott on Roads and Streets, page 17.] In any event, whether the terms "street," as used in a statute, is used in its ordinary

signification as including the sidewalks as well as the roadway, or whether it is used in its limited sense, meaning the roadway only, is a question which must be decided in each case in the light of the context.

As stated above the term "alley" is used to designate a narrow way, less in size than a street, but it is obvious that whether the way is or is not to be called an alley depends upon the relation it bears to other ways in the same city or town; for in some cities or towns the way would be. deemed so narrow as to be merely an alley and not a street, while in others it would be comparatively of such a considerable width as to take rank as a street.

3. Dedication. As stated in section 1, the street, alley, lane, etc., must be open or dedicated, but no formal acceptance of the same by the legislative body of the city is necessary. The mere dedication of land by the owner to public use, as public streets, lanes, alleys or other public places, converts it into a public street, lane, alley, or other public place, for the purposes of said act, without any formal acceptance of the same as such by the legislative body of the city, who may thereafter improve them in the manner provided by law. [Stone v. Brooks, 35 Cal. 490.] Held, therefore, that where the owner of a lot fronting on Perry street, a cul de sac, sells the same, and at the sale represents the lot as fronting on an extension of the cul de sac so extended as to terminate at and open upon a public street running at right angles that this is a dedication to public use as a street of that portion of the lot represented on the map as an extension of Perry street, and as such was thereafter subject to the jurisdiction of the board for all purposes of its improvement, which, when made, operates as a complete acceptance of the dedication, and perfects the right of the public to its use as a public highway for all purposes. [Id.] [See Spaulding v. Bradley, 79 Cal. 450.]

SECTION 2. Whenever the public interest or convenience may require, the city council is hereby authorized and empowered to order the whole, or any portion, either in length or width, of the streets, avenues, lanes, alleys, courts, or places of any such city graded or re-graded to the official grade, planked or re-planked, paved or re-paved, macadamized or re-macadamized, graveled, or re-graveled, piled or re-piled, capped or re-capped, sewered or re-sewered, and to order sidewalks, manholes, culverts, cesspools, gutters, tunnels, curbing, and cross-walks to be constructed therein, or to order breakwaters, levees, or walls of rock, or other material to protect the same from overflow or injury, and to order any other work to be done which shall be necessary to complete the whole or any portion of said streets, avenues, sidewalks, lanes, alleys, courts, or places, and it may order any of the said work to be improved; and also to order a sewer or sewers, with outlets, for

drainage or sanitary purposes, in, over or through any right of way granted or obtained for such purpose; provided, that whenever the grade of a street, avenue, lane, alley, court, or place shall hereafter be changed, the petition of the owners of a majority of the feet fronting thereon, asking for grading the same to the new grade, shall be a condition precedent to the ordering of such grading to be done. [Amendment, approved March 11, 1893, Statutes 1893, page 172.]

[Section 2 was amended 1889, by act of March 14, 1889, statutes 1889, page 157; again in 1891, by act of March 31, 1891, statutes 1891, page 196; and again in 1893, by act of March 11, 1893, statutes 1893, page 172.]

1. Scope of Section 2. Section two of the act declares what kinds of street work may be done upon the streets, lanes, alleys, etc., which section one declares to be subject to the provisions of the act. Section one designates the kinds of highways subject to the provisions of the act, and section two designates the kinds of work which may be done upon these highways.

The section allows work to be ordered for less than the width of the roadway or street, and for any defined part of a block in length. There is no limit to the length of the proposed work, except that it must be confined to streets, lanes, etc., that is, it must not include any extension, like the discharge of a sewer, over private property, unless, for sewers, the right of way has been obtained. The jurisdiction of the council is limited to streets, lanes, alleys, etc., opened or dedicated.

Under the San Francisco Street Work Act of 1863, authorizing the city council to order "the whole or any portion of the streets" to be improved, the council has power to let the work of improving separate portions of a street by one proceeding and in one contract therefor. [Macadamizing Co. v. Williams, 70 Cal. 534.]

The work authorized by section two of the act may be separated into three kinds, viz: (1) Work upon the roadway only, viz., grading and re-grading, planking and replanking, paving and repaving, etc. "Re-grading" is when a street, degraded by use, is brought back again to the same grade. But if the grade of the street has been officially changed meanwhile by ordinance "re-grading" is not the proper word. The work will then be, as in the first instance, grading to the official grade. In McVary . Boyd, 89 Cal. 305, it was held, that, whenever the condition of a street is such as, in the estimation of the legislative authorities of the city, it is proper that the burden of "re-grading" should be borne by the entire block, the improvement may be ordered even though a similar expense had been previously borne by the property owners for the original grading. (What is said about re-grading

applies also to re-planking, re-paving, etc.) (2.) The second class of work provided for by section two is such as is not necessarily confined to the roadway, or street in its limited sense, viz., sidewalks, manholes, culverts, cesspools, gutters, tunnels, curbing, etc. (3.) The third class of work provided for by section two is the improvement of any of the other work mentioned in the section. The word "improved" is here used in its most technical sense, i. e., the restoration, or enlargement, or completion of work once done on the same grade. In common speech, and frequently throughout the act [See subd. 2 of sec. 34] the word is applied also to work in the first instance. wherever work is to be ordered, after the first instance, and on the previous grade, and adds certain things to complete the street, the proceedings should designate the work to be done "to improve * * * street, by" etc.

But

2. Grading. Section 2 of the act provides that "the city council is hereby authorized and empowered to order * * * the streets ** *graded or re-graded to the official grade." Consequently the council only has power to grade a street to the official grade, and therefore, whether the grade was officially established or not before proceedings were begun to grade it, is a material issue in an action upon a street assessment, and must be proved by the plaintiff if denied by defendant.

"The power to lay out, open and grade streets carries with it, by necessary implication, the power to establish the grade of such streets, unless the power be expressly reserved or granted to another body or officer." [Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 224.] As to what is evidence of the establishment of the official grade of a street, see Gafney v. San Francisco, 72 Cal. 146; Dorland v. Bergson, 78 Cal. 637; City of Napa v. Easterby, 61 Cal. 510; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213.

As the city council can only grade a street to its official grade, it is not necessary that the resolution of intention to do the work should state that the street is to be graded to the official grade; a statement that it is to be "graded" is sufficient. For, in view of the fact that the street can only be graded to its official grade, "a resolution that a street be graded is equivalent to a resolution that it be graded to the official grade." [Emery v. S. F. Gas. Co., 28 Cal. 376–7.] Grading must necessarily precede macadamizing but where the statute does not expressly provide that no contract for macadamizing shall be made until the street is graded, the city authorities may authorize a contract for macadamizing after a contract contract for grading has been.

entered into, but before the grading has been done. [Dyer v. Hudson, 65 Cal. 374.] The board may order a street to be planked before it is graded, and it seems before a contract for grading has been entered into, provided the grade and width has been officially established. [Knowles v. Seale, 64 Cal. 377-under a San Francisco street act.]

Under section two as amended in 1893 (Sts. '93, p. 172-3) where the grade of a street, avenue, lane, alley, etc., has been changed, the street, avenue, lane, etc., can not be graded to the new grade, except upon petition of the owners of a majority of the frontage, asking for grading the same to the new grade. Without such petition proceedings to grade such street, avenue, lane, etc., to the new grade, would be void. [See Turrill v. Grattan, 52 Cal. 97; Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585; Gately v. Leviston, 63 Cal. 365.]

SECTION 3. Before ordering any work done or improvement made, which is authorized by section two of this act, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention so to do, and describing the work, which shall be posted conspicuously for two days on or near the chamber door of said council, and published by two insertions in one or more daily, semi-weekly, or weekly newpapers published and circulated in said city, and designated by said council for that purpose. The street superintendent shall thereupon cause to be conspicuously posted along the line of said contemplated work or improvement, at not more than one hundred feet in distance apart, but not less than three in all, or when the work to be done is only upon an entire crossing or any part thereof, in front of each quarter block and irregular block liable to be assessed, notices of the passage of said resolution. Said notice shall be headed "Notice of Street Work," in letters of not less than one inch in length, and shall, in legible characters, state the fact of the passage of the resolution, its date, and briefly the work or improvement proposed, and refer to the resolution for further particulars. He shall also cause a notice, similar in substance, to be published for six days, in one or more daily newspapers published and circulated in said city, and designated by said city council, or in cities where there is no daily newspaper, by one insertion in a semi-weekly or weekly newspaper so published, circulated, and designated. In case there is no such paper published in said city, said notice shall be posted for six days on or near the chamber door of said council and in two other conspicuous places in said city, as hereinafter provided. The owners of a majority of the frontage of the property fronting on said proposed work or improvement, where the same is for one block, or more, may make a written objection to the same within ten days after the expiration of the time of the publication and posting of said notice, which objection shall be delivered to the clerk of the city council, who shall indorse thereon the date of its reception by him, and such objections so delivered and indorsed shall be a bar for six months to any further proceedings in relation to the doing of said work, or making said improvements unless the owners of the one-half or more of the frontage, as aforesaid, shall meanwhile petition for the same to be done. At any time before the issuance of the assessment roll, all owners of lots or lands liable to assessment therein, who, after the first publica