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 our
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.