Turrill

It does not otherwise appear that the petitioners have or claim to have the requisite frontage. The majority of frontage on Washington Street was not sufficient in this case, because the improvement covers nine intermediate crossings, and the lots on these cross streets, for half a block each way, were liable by law for the grading of the crossings. The petitioners do not claim to have any frontage on the cross streets. They do not say they have a majority of frontage on Washington Street.

J. M. Wood, for Respondent.

That part of the fourth section of the Act of 1872 (Stats. 1872, p. 805) applicable to this question, reads as follows:

We respectfully submit that the disjunctive conjunction “ or,” in the above quotation, should not be construed to mean “ and.” If not so construed the statute does not support the judgment herein.

The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco have no jurisdiction to give notice of an intention to order, or to order, grading to be done on any street mentioned in the third section of the Act of 1872, in the absence of the petition mentioned in *99 the fourth section; and there is no legal difference between no petition and a petition lacking the…