Opinion Per HOLCOMB, C. J. [112 Wash. cover damages for such alleged interference. This appeal is from a judgment of the trial court awarding damages and the injunctive relief prayed. One R. M. Acord originally owned the ferry now being operated by respondent, and in 1916, the sheriff of Okanogan county levied upon and sold this ferry to satisfy a judgment held against Acord by the Spokane Merchants' Association. It seems that this concern purchased the ferry at the execution sale, and in March, 1917, sold it to respondent, Anderson, who undertook to operate it. He did not, however, procure a license to do this until May 8, 1917, at which time, under an order of the county commissioners of Okanogan county, the county auditor issued to him a license to operate and maintain the ferry at Monse. At this time appellants were already operating their ferry at the same place under a license therefor issued to appellant Glenn under date of February 7, 1917, he having complied with the requirements of the statute relating to the giving of notice of intention to apply for a license. There is testimony by two of the county commissioners and by the deputy county attorney to the effect that, at the time of the hearing upon Glenn's application for a license, attention was called to the fact that a ferry (the old Acord ferry) was already being operated by Anderson at the place in question; that they understood that the license issued to Glenn was not to interfere with the operation of a ferry by any one else at this point; and that the license was not given to Glenn to the exclusion of any other person. But the statute, Rem. Code, § 5009, provides that: "Every person licensed to keep a ferry, according to the provisions of this article, shall have the exclusive privilege of transporting all persons and property over and across the stream where such ferry is established, July 1920] Opinion Per HOLCOMB, C. J. The operation by Anderson of his ferry before this time was not under authority of a license issued to him. The license was not to the ferry boat and apparatus, but to the person operating. The execution sale transferred the personal property, but not the personal privilege. After the county commissioners had issued a license to Glenn in February, they could not properly issue one to Anderson in May. Glenn's right was exclusive, under the section of the statute quoted, the provision of law to that effect becoming an effective provision of his license the same as if incorporated therein. Respondent says he is not attempting to enjoin appellants from operating their ferry at some other place, and claims that, by moving their cable and other appliances a short distance away from his on both banks of the river, appellants can operate their ferry without interfering with his boat. But, under the statute, as we have seen, there was an exclusive privilege to maintain a ferry at this place, and this privilege belonged to appellants. Even were the cable and other appurtenances of either party to the controversy moved so as to permit the operation of both ferry boats without either one interfering with the other, still the proximity of the two ferries would be such as to infringe upon the exclusive privilege assured by the statute to the person rightfully operating his ferry. It follows that the judgment of the trial court must be, and it is, reversed and the cause dismissed. BRIDGES, FULLERTON, MOUNT, and TOLMAN, JJ., con cur. 2-112 WASH. [No. 15944. Department One. July 28, 1920.] THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of EMINENT DOMAIN (14, 39)-STATE HIGHWAYS-NECESSITY OF APPROPRIATION-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY. The evidence shows a reasonable necessity for a proposed state highway through farming lands of the relators, where it appears that the use of the present county roadway through a small town would entail the expenditure of large sums in the building of a viaduct and bridges, that the proposed route is a half mile shorter and eliminates excessive grades, curves and two railroad crossings at grade, and that the Federal government refused to aid in the enterprise should adverse plans proposed by the county be adopted. SAME (14, 39)-LOCATION OF ROUTE-NECESSITY-APPROPRIATION ACT STATUTES. The act of 1919, ch. 92, p. 223, appropriating funds for the construction of that part of the North Central Highway between Harrington and Wilson Creek, does not preclude use of the funds in the construction of the highway along a proposed route that does not run through the town of Wilson Creek; since the locating act, Laws of 1919, ch. 110, p. 268, omitted any mention of Wilson Creek and merely provided for the most feasible route between Ephrata and Krupp, and the evidence showed no feasible route to which the appropriation relates that will reach nearer the corporate limits of Wilson Creek than the route selected. SAME (104)-PROCEEDINGS-CONDITIONS PRECEDENT-LOCATION OF ROAD STATUTES. Rem. Code, § 5870, providing that no appropriation for the construction of a state road shall be expended thereon until the state highway board shall have declared the road feasible and approved maps, plans and specifications submitted by the highway commissioner after survey of the entire length of such highway and the making of outline and profile maps, must be held to be modified by the act of 1919, ch. 92, p. 223, making appropriation for the purpose of meeting the cost of constructing only specified parts of the state's highways. 'Reported in 191 Pac. 416. Opinion Per MITCHELL, J. July 1920] Certiorari to review orders of the superior court for Grant county, Sessions, J., entered June 1, 1920, adjudging a public use and necessity in condemnation proceedings, after a hearing before the court. Affirmed. E. J. Cannon, T. B. Southard, and C. G. Jeffers, for relators. The Attorney General and Jno. A. Homer, Assistant, for respondent. MITCHELL, J.-This action and that of the State v. Louis C. Williams et al., and another, the State v. P. C. Lorentzen et al., were instituted in the superior court of Grant county, for the purpose of condemning property through farm lands upon which to construct a portion of the North Central Highway. A hearing was had upon all the petitions, under stipulation of consolidation, resulting in an order in each case granting the petition therein and adjudicating public use and necessity as prayed for. Thereafter, upon application, this court issued its writ of certiorari, pursuant to which the proceedings leading up to and resulting in the entry of the orders complained of are here for review, and for which purpose the three cases have again been consolidated by agreement of counsel. The legislature (Laws of 1919, ch. 110, p. 268), declared: "Sec. 12. That section 15 of chapter 164 of the Laws of 1915 be amended to read as follows: "Section 15. A primary state highway is established as follows: A highway starting from a connection with the Sunset Highway at Ellensburg; thence by the most feasible route (heretofore the Sunset Highway) to the Columbia River near Vantage; crossing the same and continuing thence northeasterly by the most feasible route (heretofore the Sunset Highway) Opinion Per MITCHELL, J. [112 Wash. to Quincy; thence by the most feasible route (heretofore the North Central Highway) through Ephrata, Krupp, Odessa, and Harrington to a junction with the Sunset Highway at Davenport, to be known as the North Central Highway." The present county road running easterly from Ephrata reaches a point some 360 feet from the southwest corner of the corporate limits and about 1,400 feet from the business section of the town of Wilson Creek, thence it makes a northerly turn, crosses the Great Northern Railway tracks, and still further north enters Main street in the town of Wilson Creek, and follows that street easterly through the town, thence on to a point about one mile east of the town, thence runs to the south, again crosses the Great Northern Railway tracks, and runs about one-half mile further south to what is spoken of as the Lorentzen corner. Here the county road makes a right-angle turn to the left, and continues in an easterly direction about six miles to the town of Krupp. There is a stream, Crab creek, which flows from the east to Wilson Creek. Within several miles of the town on the east, the creek penetrates a large swampy section, and then runs on in low land through the city and to the south of Main street and the business and residence portion of the city and on the north side of the railway tracks. The swampy area is drained by a large ditch which runs on through the town. The ditch is ample to carry the water except during high water season, when the swamp is covered with water. There is a stream called Wilson creek which runs from the north through the easterly part of the town and empties into Crab creek. Immediately south of and within a few hundred feet of the town, a bench or hill rises precipitously from the low lands. It commences to rise from |