
    [No. 14565.
    Department Two.
    March 2, 1918.]
    Coats-Fordney Logging Company, Respondent, v. Grays Harbor Logging Company et al., Appellants.
    
    Eminent Domain—Damages—Award—Appeal—Review. An appeal from the award of damages in eminent domain proceedings presents only the propriety and justness of the award.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Grays Harbor county, Reynolds, J., entered July 17, 1917, upon the verdict of a jury awarding damages in a condemnation proceeding.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Abel, A. M. Abel, and Domvorth & Todd, for appellants.
    
      Bridges & Bruener, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 171 Pac. 241.
    
   Mount, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of $2,500 damages for the taking of an alleged private way of necessity through the lands of the appellants.

The only error assigned is that the statute upon which the proceeding is based is in violation of the f ourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution. That question was determined adversely to the contention of the appellants in State ex rel. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 503, 144 Pac. 722. No new argument is presented upon this appeal. This court has uniformly held that an appeal from an award of damages in a condemnation case presents to this court for consideration only the propriety and justice of the award. State ex rel. McCormick v. Superior Court, 43 Wash. 91, 86 Pac. 205; State ex rel. Pagett v. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 35, 89 Pac. 178; Whatcom County v. Yellowkanim, 48 Wash. 90, 92 Pac. 892; Calispel Hiking District v. McLeish, 63 Wash. 331, 115 Pac. 508.

No claim is made upon this appeal that the damages awarded were not sufficient, or that the trial court committed error upon the trial of that question. There is, therefore, nothing for us to consider, unless we review our decision in State ex rel. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Superior Court, supra. Since the question there considered cannot he. raised upon this appeal, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

We are asked by the appellants to consolidate this appeal with the application for a writ of review in State ex rel. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Superior Court, ante p. 485, 171 Pac. 238. These cases present entirely different questions. For that reason, the motion is denied.

Ellis, C. J., Holcomb, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.  