Gray

The plaintiffs applied to the superior court for a writ of mandate compelling the defendant, as superintendent of streets of the city of San Rafael, to issue to them an assessment for certain work done in the improvement of a street in said city under a contract alleged to have heen entered into between them and the predecessor in office of the defendant. In his answer to their petition, the defendant, in addition to other defenses set forth by him, alleged that no valid contract for do *461 ing the work named in their petition had ever been entered into by the superintendent of streets of said city with the plaintiffs’ assignor, or with any other person. Upon this issue the court found in favor of the defendant, and denied the plaintiffs’ application for the writ. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the ground that this finding was not sustained by the evidence. Their motion having been denied, they have appealed therefrom, and also from the judgment denying their application.

The contract for doing the work for which the plaintiffs sought an assessment was offered in evidence at the trial, and provided that the contractor (the assignor of the plaintiffs) should do and…