Judgment Unopposed not Necessarily a Consent Judgment. — A motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the judgment appealed from was entered by consent, cannot be sustained where the record, though it shows that no opposition was made, fails to show that appellant or his attorney was present in Court at its entry.

Presumption in Favor of Eight of Appeal.—Doubtful claims affecting the right of appeal should be liberally construed in favor of the right.

“ Second Street Cut ” in San Francisco—Defects in Proceedings Cured.—The amendatory Act of February 1st, 1870, ratifying and confirming all the orders and resolutions of the Board of Supervisors in reference to the “ Second Street Cut ” in San Francisco, and the proceedings of the Superintendent of Streets, and the contract, and all the acts and doings of the contractor under it (Stats. 1869-70, p. 41), cured an omission of the Supervisors to publish notice as required by the original Act authorizing the improvement. (Stats. 1867-8, p. 595.)

Street Improvements—Power of Legislature to Cure Defects in Proceedings.—In reference to proceedings of statutory creation for the improvement of certain streets in San Francisco; held, that it was competent for the Legislature, by subsequent enactment, to cure any defects or ' omissions in the proceedings of the Board of Supervisors or Superintendent of Streets.

Final Disposition op Objections to Oommissioners’ Report on “ Second Street Out.”—The Act of February 1st, 1870, in reference to the “ Second Street Out” in San Francisco (Stats. 1869-70, p. 41), in providing that the judgment of the County Court, either confirming or setting aside the report of the Commissioners, should be “final and conclusive,” obviously contemplated that all objections to the report, founded upon the errors, misconduct, irregularities, or omissions of the Commissioners, should be heard and determined by the County Court, and that it should not thereafter be open to attack in a collateral action.

Eppect op “Acceptance” op Street in San Francisco.—The only obligation imposed upon the City and County of San Francisco, by section twenty-one of the street law of 1862 (Stats. 1862, p. 391), if there be any, is to keep open and improved that portion of. the street constructed and “accepted” in accordance therewith; and there is no obligation on the part of the city and county to pay assessments upon property for benefits derived from the opening and improvement of other portions of the same street.