Relfe

— Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying it relief in an action to quiet title to seventy-five parcels of real property situated in the city and county of San Francisco.

The record discloses that in 1926, plaintiff was the owner of seventy-eight separate parcels of real property situated in said city and county. It is not questioned that in that year, pursuant to a street improvement ordinance of said city and comity providing therefor, proceedings were regularly taken for the construction of an improvement affecting said property, the levy of an assessment thereon and the issuance of bonds for the payment of such assessment. One bond was issued against each of the seventy-eight parcels of said property. Defendant Federal Construction Company became the owner of said bonds. Each bond executed by plaintiff was payable both as to principal and interest in twenty semi-annual installments representing the amount of the assessment on each parcel of said property. Eleven of the installment payments were made by plaintiff, but it defaulted on the installment which became due February 4, 1933, and it has since been in default. On March 5, 1937, in accordance with the ordinance and at…

— I dissent. It was admitted by the parties, and the majority opinion concedes, that the proceedings leading to the sale were valid in all respects. It is also conceded that the sale of the property was valid. In this regard the trial court found, and the testimony was uneontradieted, that the seventy-eight lots were sold separately. The only irregularity in the proceedings was the issuance of a single certificate of sale instead of separate certificates for each parcel. Section 35 of the ordinance provides: “The . . . Board is hereby authorized to make any sale authorized by any agreement and bond and shall issue for each sale an original and duplicate certificate of sale, in appropriate form, referring to this *173 ordinance, describing the parcels sold and containing the name of the purchaser; the originals shall be delivered to the purchaser and the duplicates shall be on file in the form of stubs in a certificate book.”

While the ordinance required separate certificates of sale, it does not follow that the certificate issued was invalid. In Los Angeles Olive Growers’ Assn. v. Pozzi, 167 Cal. 454 [ 140 P. 581 ], this court stated: “. . . the rule of strict adherence to…