[1] Municipal Corporations'—Tunnel Construction Assessment— Contest—Pleading—Parties.—In an action to contest the validity of a municipal tunnel construction assessment, it is not necessary that the mayor and the clerk of the hoard of supervisors be made parties defendant, where no good reason appears for making them parties aside from their official position.

[2] Id.—San Francisco Charter—Tunnel Construction—Adoption op "Procedure Ordinance—Bight op Board op • Supervisors.— Under chapter "VIII" of article VI of the San Francisco charter, the hoard of supervisors may adopt a procedure wholly différent from that provided by chapter II of article-VIII for the acquisition of property for a right of way and approaches for a tunnel, and- for an assessment on private property for the costs and damages.

[3] Id.—Use op Tunnel—Operation op Street-cars—Bight op City not Exclusive.—Under article VI, chapter VIII, section 5, of its charter, the city and county of San Francisco cannot have an exclusive right to the use of a tunnel constructed to provide a way for one or more street-ear lines, and the use of the tunnel exclusively for cars on a branch of the street-car system operated by the city is unauthorized.

[4] Id.—Construction op Tunnel por . Street-cars—Special Benefit to Private Property Owners.—The construction of a municipal tunnel in which no way is provided for passage through it except in street-cars is specially beneficial to private property upon which the assessment is levied, where without the making of the tunnel the inhabitants of the more remote district could not reach the city by means of street-cars except by a circuitous route involving considerable delay, and means of access to the city is confined to such car lines and to travel by vehicles or on foot over steep hills.

[5] Id.—Assessment in Excess of -Benefits—When Valid.—Where conditions are such that the city authorities might reasonably conclude that there was special benefit to the property assessed, the court cannot set aside the assessment on the ground that it exceeds the benefits received from the improvement.

[6] Id.—Tunnel not Opened to All Modes of Travel—Public Use.—A municipal tunnel between two parts of the municipality is a public improvement, for the public benefit, and is a public use, although not open to all modes of travel, where it is open to the general public for travel on street-car lines running through it.

[7] Id.—Tunnel Construction Ordinance—Public Uses—Validity Unaffected.—The claim that a tunnel construction proceeding is invalid because the tunnel constitutes a single public use, whereas the tunnel procedure ordinance authorized the construction of a tunnel “for public uses,” is without merit, since the singular number includes the plural, and vice versa.

[8] Id.—Acquisition of Land for Tunnel Purposes—San Francisco Charter.—Article VI, chapter VIII, sections 1, 2, 3, and 6, of the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, authorize the construction of a tunnel through land to be acquired, if the city does not already have the necessary property, and to carry on both the acquisition and construction in a single proceeding, and the city is not limited in the construction to land in which it has a previous easement.

[9] Id.—Acquisition of Strip Necessary for Construction— Effect of Charter Provision.—In view of article VI, chapter VIII, section 2, of the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, where the resolution of intention for the construction of a tunnel shows that a part of the ninety-foot strip was acquired as an addition to the width of a street, a part of which was taken for the tunnel and thereby made unfit for a street, such strip must be deemed necessary for the construction.

[10] Id.—Use of Entire Strip—Record—Presumption on Appeal.— In a proceeding to set aside an assessment for the construction of a municipal tunnel in the city and county of San Francisco, the burden rests upon the plaintiff taxpayer to show errors in the decision of the board of supervisors in acting upon the report of the board of public works, not shown upon the face of the record.

[11] Id.—Property not Benefited—Omission from Assessment— •Construction of Tunnel Construction Ordinance.—A provision in a municipal tunnql construction ordinance that upon receiving the resolution of intention of the board of supervisors ordering the construction of the tunnel, the board of public works, after first determining the amount of damages that will be sustained by persons claiming damages, must estimate the total amount of costs of construction, including the costs of acquiring the necessary land and the damages sustained, and assess the total sum upon the several lots of land benefited within the district or districts of assessment, so that each of the lots shall be assessed in accordance with its benefits caused by such construction, necessarily implies that no- benefits shall be assessed against any parcel which the board may find is not benefited.

[12] In.—Omission of Nonbenefited Parcels—Discretion of Board of Public Works—Construction of Tunnel Construction Ordinance.—A provision in such an ordinance that the board of public works must prepare and report to the supervisors a map of the districts as specified in the resolution of intention, showing the subdivisions of property therein as shown by the assessment maps of the city and county assessor, giving each subdivision a separate number, a list showing the names of the persons to whom each parcel is assessed and an estimate of the benefits which each of the respective subdivisions or parcels will receive from and by the construction of the tunnel, implies discretion to estimate that some parcel will receive no benefit.

[13] Id.—Unassessed Property Within Assessment District— Bight of Protest by Person Interested—Construction of Tunnel Construction Ordinance.—A provision in such an ordinance that any person interested may object to the extent of , the districts declared to be benefited in the resolution of intention, or to the amount of benefits fixed by the hoard of public works in its report, or to any other act, determination or proceeding of the board or of the supervisors in the proceeding, and may file a written statement of Ms objections, and on those grounds protest against the confirmation of the reported assessment, implies the right to protest against the omission to assess benefits upon any parcel not reported as benefited by the board of public works.

[14] Id.—Property Benefited—Amount of Assessment—Finality of Decision of Board of Supervisors.—The final decision of the board of supervisors as to the property benefited and the amount to be assessed for tunnel construction is conclusive, unless attacked on the ground of fraud or mistake.

[15] Id.—Board of Supervisors’ Ultimate Authority.—The court will not declare such decision void unless it can plainly see from the face of the record or from facts judicially known that the assessment so finally confirmed is not proportional to benefits.

[16] Id.—Action to Set Aside Assessment—Inquiry as to Other Assessments—Construction of Ordinance—Provision in a municipal tunnel construction ordinance that an action may be begun by any person aggrieved to contest the validity of the assessment does not give a contestant the right to inquire into the particulars of each assessment and have the court revise it and set it aside if it shall find a different apportionment would be more ■ justi or equitable, or that some of the lots not assessed were benefited.

[17] Id.—¡Filing Protests to Report op Board op Public Works— Reasonableness op Time.—A municipal tunnel construction assessment is not invalid because persons interested were only given twenty days after the first publication of the notice of the filing of the report of the board of public works with the board of supervisors to file their protests, the said period not being unreasonable.

[18] Id.—Action to Set Aside -Assessment—Evidence—Benefits— Action op Board in Making Estimate.—In an action to set aside a municipal tunnel construction assessment, it was not erroneous to exclude evidence as to how the board of supervisors proceeded in estimating what the benefits assessed should be upon different blocks, since such evidence was incompetent to impeach the assessment finally made by the supervisors upon the hearing.