Laird & Packard, Galpin & Bolton, T. M. McNamara, and Charles G. Lamberson, for Respondents.

HENSHAW, J.-For the facts of these cases reference is made to Youle v. Thomas, 146 Cal. 537, [80 Pac. 714]. W. E. Youle contested the right of defendant Thomas to purchase the north half of the section for which she had made application and held the certificate of purchase. Albert R. Wilkes in like manner contested her right to purchase the south half. These appellants are the interveners who, as noted in Youle v. Thomas, by leave of court filed complaints in intervention, each claiming as an applicant for the purchase of a forty-acre tract under the acts for the purchase of mineral lands. When the case came on for trial the court on motion dismissed these sixteen complaints in intervention, and the interveners appeal. Youle v. Thomas, above cited, dealt with the right of the intervener Clarke to be heard in the contest between Youle and Thomas. The same proposition that was presented in that case touching the intervener Clarke is here presented in but slightly changed form in regard to these appellants. The reasoning adopted and the conclusion reached in that case are strictly applicable to the present cases. No elaboration of the views expressed in Youle v. Thomas is called for. As under no circumstances would these interveners have been entitled to litigate in the contest between Youle and Thomas, or Wilkes v. Thomas, it follows that they were not aggrieved by the orders and judgments dismissing their complaints in intervention, which orders and judgments are therefore affirmed.

Shaw, J., Angellotti, J., McFarland, J., Sloss, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

[L. A. No. 1703. In Bank.-March 20, 1907.]

W. M. WRIGHT, Respondent, v. EDWIN R. FOX, Defendant and Appellant, and J. M. ELLIOTT et al., Defendants.

TAXATION-ASSESSMENT OF CITY LOTS-FAILURE TO DESIGNATE CITY.Under subdivision 3 of section 3650 of the Political Code an assessment of land, as follows:

which entirely fails to designate the city or town, and which is unaided by reference to any map, plat, or tract, is void, and all subsequent proceedings, and the deed made thereunder, are likewise void.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. N. P. Conrey, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Cole & Cole, for Appellant.

O. B. Carter, for Respondent.

HENSHAW, J.-Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title in himself against the defendant Edwin R. Fox and others to certain pieces of land. All the defendants save defendant Fox made default. Fox answered, denied plaintiff's title, and asserted title in himself, his claim of title being based on tax-deeds which he offered in evidence. To the introduction of these plaintiff objected, upon the ground they were irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. It was stipulated that if the defendant failed to establish title in himself by virtue of the tax-deeds, then title was in plaintiff and the decree should be given accordingly. The court found the invalidity of the tax-deeds and rendered its decree quieting title in plaintiff's favor. Defendant Fox moved for a new trial, and

his motion being denied, appeals from the judgment and from that order.

Section 3650 of the Political Code requires the assessor to prepare an assessment-book with appropriate headings, in which must be listed all property within the county, under the appropriate head. The assessment in this case is in the following language:—

It would seem to be an assessment drawn under subdivision 3 of section 3650 of the Political Code,-that is to say, an assessment of city and town lots. So regarded, it fails to designate the city or town. It describes property as being in the county of Los Angeles, in some city or town, and upon Jefferson Street therein, lot 5 in block 3. Not only is no effort made to aid this description by references to map, plat, or tract, but we are advised by appellant that the land was not within the corporate limits of any city or town. We then have extra-urban land assessed as being lot 5, block 3, in Jefferson Street, a description which of course is fatally and radically defective. (Labs v. Cooper, 107 Cal. 656, [40 Pac. 1042]; Miller v. Williams, 135 Cal. 183, [57 Pac. 788].) This is not at all the case presented in Baird v. Monroe, ante, p. 560, [89 Pac. 352], decided by this court on February 16, 1907, first, because here there was no attempt to aid the assessment by evidence, and, in the second place, this assessment pretends to fix property, not as in any tract, but as in Jefferson Street; so it would seem impossible, even if the effort had been made, to aid so defective a description by evidence of a map.

The assessment being thus void, all subsequent proceedings, and the deed made thereunder, are likewise void. (Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666; Greenwood v. Adams, 80 Cal. 74, [21 Pac. 1134]; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 506, [59 Pac. 944].) The conclusion thus reached renders unnecessary a consideration of any of the further propositions of respondent against the sufficiency of the tax-deed.

For the foregoing reason the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Angellotti, J., Sloss, J., Shaw, J., and Lori

gan, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

[L. A. No. 1821. In Bank.-March 21, 1907.]

In the Matter of the Estate of ROSARIO DE CIGARAN, Deceased.

SUCCESSION FROM ILLEGITIMATES-CONSTRUCTION OF SECTIONS 1388 AND 1386 OF CIVIL CODE.-Section 1388 of the Civil Code, which prior to its amendment provided "if an illegitimate child, who has not been acknowledged or adopted by his father, dies intestate, without lawful issue, his estate goes to his mother, or in case of her decease, to his heirs at law," established the rule of succession to the whole estate of an illegitimate, not acknowledged or adopted by his father, who dies intestate without lawful issue, except in so far as it may be qualified by section 1387 of that code; and this rule, being contrary to the general rules of succession prescribed by section 1386, must prevail over anything contained in that section, as that section, by its express terms, is limited to cases not otherwise expressly provided for.

ID.-SUCCESSION BY HEIRS OF MOTHER OF ILLEGITIMATE

- SURVIVING HUSBAND EXCLUDED.-Under section 1388 of the Civil Code, where an illegitimate woman who had never been acknowledged or adopted by her father dies intestate without issue, leaving a husband her surviving, her entire separate property is succeeded to by the heirs at law of her mother to the exclusion of her surviving husband. ID. SUCCESSION BY ILLEGITIMATE HALF-SISTER OF ILLEGITIMATE.-Under section 1387 of the Civil Code an illegitimate child is an heir of his mother, and where an illegitimate woman, who had never been acknowledged or adopted by her father, dies intestate without issue, leaving surviving a husband, and an illegitimate half-sister by another father, as the sole heir at law of her mother, her entire separate estate is succeeded to by her illegitimate half-sister, to the exclusion of her surviving husband. ID.-LEGISLATURE DETERMINES SUCCESSION.-The question as to whether a surviving spouse of an illegitimate should inherit is one solely for the legislature, and the courts cannot substitute their own views thereon for the views of the lawmaking power.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Curtis D. Wilbur, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

H. H. Appel, Henry T. Gage, and W. I. Foley, for Appellant.

J. Wiseman McDonald, for Respondent.

ANGELLOTTI, J.-This is an appeal from the judgment given in a proceeding brought under section 1664 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have determined the rights of all persons to the estate of Rosario de Cigaran, deceased.

There is no dispute as to the material facts, which are as follows: Deceased died intestate. She was an illegitimate child, and had never been acknowledged or adopted by her father. At the time of her death, she was the wife of Vicente de Cigaran, who survives her. She died without issue, legitimate or illegitimate. There also survived her one Mrs. Refugio Padilla, who was also an illegitimate daughter of the mother of deceased, by a different father, and who likewise had never been adopted or acknowledged by her father. The mother of these illegitimates died prior to the death of deceased, having never been married, and, so far as appears, leaving no issue other than decedent and Mrs. Padilla. All the property of the deceased was her separate property, she having owned the same prior to her marriage. The only claimants of the estate, or any interest therein, are the surviving husband and Refugio Padilla. The judgment of the lower court awarded the whole estate to the surviving husband, and Refugio Padilla appeals therefrom.

The questions presented by this appeal turn upon the proper construction of various provisions of our statutes relating to succession as the same existed at the date of death of the deceased, certain of said provisions having been amended since the death of deceased.

Respondent bases his claim on subdivision 5 of section 1386 of the Civil Code, the general section relating to the succession to the property of intestates. That subdivision was as follows: "If the decedent leave a surviving husband or wife, and neither issue, father, mother, brother, nor sister, the whole estate goes to the surviving husband or wife." The theory of respondent in this regard is that appellant, by reason of ille