This is an action to quiet title to lots 39 and 40 in block 42 of University Heights, in the city of San Diego, county of San Diego, state of California. The complaint of appellant is in the usual form and alleges title in himself. The answer of respondent denies title in the appellant and alleges title in herself. Appellant deraigns his title through an assessment of the property made by the county assessor of the county of San Diego, in the year 1917, and delinquent tax sale of the property under which it was sold to the state on June 25, 1918. It is admitted that the appellant has no title to the property unless he acquired it under the assessment and the following tax sale.

The record before us shows that on the assessment-roll the two lots were listed separately after the name of an owner, each lot being given a separate valuation. Thereafter, the valuations were added together and the assess ment carried out to one total. This form of assessment has been approved in the case of Gottstein v. Holmes, 89 Cal. App. 145 [ 264 Pac. 310 ], which involved a similar assessment in San Diego County for the same year. It further appears from the record that on the delinquent list for the same year this property was assessed to its owner, whose name appears but once on the assessment. In the next two columns of this delinquent list follows the description of the two parcels of property, described separately. Following in the next column is the valuation of each lot, separately stated. Thereafter, the total valuation of the two lots, the total taxes,, the total penalties and the advertising costs are added together and consolidated and carried forward as a single item under each head. The total tax and penalties, for which the two lots were to he sold, appears on this list as the sum of $5.76.

In the notice of sale of the property each lot is separately described, but the taxes, penalties and costs due do not appear opposite each description but were consolidated into a single amount, $5.77, for which sum the property was sold to the state. In an addenda it appears that the property was finally sold to appellant for $5.76. It would appear that this difference of one cent arose from the dropping of fractions of cents in the computation of the penalties. In the case of Gottstein v. Kelly, 206 Cal. 742 [ 276 Pac. 347 ], it was held that such a variance in the amounts was immaterial and would not defeat the validity of the ensuing tax deed.

However, under authority of the same case, we must hold that the sale is void because neither the delinquent list nor the notice had the amounts of the taxes, penalties and costs due, appearing opposite the description of each parcel of the land to be sold. In this ease, it was held as follows:

As the proceedings leading up to the sale were fatally defective, no title was conveyed to the state of California, and it had no title to convey to appellant. As his purported title was dependent entirely upon a void tax deed, no title vested in him.

Judgment affirmed.

See hearing by Supreme Court, 162 Cal. 382 [ 123 Pac. 266 ].