Actions for foreclosure of liens for street work. Defendants had judgment, and the plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff’s right to recover in these suits depends upon the validity of the lien which the suits were brought to foreclose. This lien is attacked by respondents on several grounds, only one of which it will be necessary to notice in this opinion. Section 9 of the street improvement act, as amended in 1889, provides: “Said warrant, assessment, and diagram, together with the certificate of the city engineer, shall be recorded in the office of said superintendent of streets. When so recorded, the .several amounts assessed shall be a lien upon the lands, lots, or portions of lots assessed respectively for the period of two years from the date of said recording, unless sooner discharged.” It would seem from this that there can be no lien without a certificate of the city engineer being recorded. (Stat. 1889, p. 167.) The certificate here referred to is presumably the one mentioned in section 34 of the act (Stats. 1891, p. 306), which relates to surveys and estimates of work to be done under the act, and' when signed by the city engineer in his official character is to be treated as prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. (Gray v. Lucas, 115 Cal. 430 .) The *439 plaintiff put in evidence a certificate, which he contends fills the requirement of the statute, and which is in words and figures as follows:

Certificate No. 596, referred to in the foregoing certificate, was in the handwriting of C. H. Holcomb, an employee but not a deputy of the city engineer, and the name of the then city engineer was signed to such certificate No. 596 by said Holcomb. It was also shown that the surveying and measuring required by the act to be done bjr the city engineer was in fact performed by one E. J. Morser, another employee, and not a deputy of the city engineer.

Hpon the authority of Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 174 , and Rauer v. Lowe, 107 Cal. 229 , 1 think the conclusions reached by the learned judge before whom the cases were tried are correct, and I can find no better reasons for those conclusions than are *440 contained in the following language of the opinions rendered by the court at the trial and on motion for a new trial, to wit:

For these reasons I advise that the judgment be affirmed.

Haynes, C., and Britt, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed. McFarland, J., Temple, J., Henshaw, J.