2220 ARTICLE 67.

action shall be commenced within twelve calendar months after the death
of the deceased person.

Damages.

The equitable plaintiffs are to be compensated for their pecuniary loss only.
Tucker v. State, use Johnson, 89 Md. 471; Baltimore, etc., Turnpike v. State, use
Grimes, 71 Md. 582; Agricultural, etc., Assn. v. State, use Carty, 71 Md. 100; B. &
O. B. R. Co. v. State, use Mahone, 63 Md. 135; State, use Coughlan, v. B. & O. R. R.
Co., 24 Md. 105; B. & 0. R. R. Co. v. State, use Kelly, 24 Md. 281.

The damages recoverable under this section, distinguished from those recoverable
in a suit by personal representative of deceased, under art. 93, sec. 106. Stewart v.
United, etc., Co., 104 Md. 339. See also State, use Alien, v. Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co.,
45 Md. 47; W. B. & A. R. R. Co. v. State, 136 Md. 120,

Punitive damages cannot be recovered under this article. When plaintiff will not
be restricted to nominal damages. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Kelly, 24 Md. 280.

Fact that a husband has been separated for 12 years preceding his death, from
his family, and has contributed nothing to their support does not limit plaintiffs to
nominal damages. The right of support continues until death of husband. Admissi-
bility of evidence. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Chambers, 81 Md. 388.

The failure of the jury to divide damages among those entitled, as provided by
this section, is not ground for reversal at instance of defendant, in the absence of
prejudice. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Reuter, 114 Md. 698, distinguished. Passapae v.
Oehring, 141 Md. 61.

As to nominal damages, see also B. & 0. R. R. Co. v. State, use Fryer, 30 Md. 54;
B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Chambers, 81 Md. 388.

The court of appeals cannot deal with the matter of excessive damages, or the
apportionment thereof. The only remedy for excessive damages, is with lower court
on motion for new trial. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Hauer, 60 Md. 466.

In suit of a parent, where child dies before attaining its majority, no damages can
be assessed for pecuniary benefits after period of such majority, although the child
has been emancipated and continues to contribute to its parents' support thereafter;
contra, if child dies after attaining its majority, and since that time rendered services
to its parent. Pikesville, etc., R. Co. v. State, use Russell, 88 Md. 573; Agricultural,
etc., Assn. v. State, use Carty, 71 Md. 99; State, use Coughlan, v. B. & 0. R. R. Co.,
24 Md. 107...

For measure of damages in suit of parent for death of his or her minor child,
see Agricultural, etc., Assn. v. State, use Cartv, 71 Md. 99; B. & O. R. R. Co. v.
State, use Hauer, 60 Md. 467; Maryland v. Miller, 180 Fed. 796.

For measure of damages in a suit by widow and children of deceased, see Consol.
Gas Co. v. Smith, 109 Md. 205; Baltimore, etc., Turnpike v. State, use Grimes, 71
Md. 582; Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v. State, use Bitzer, 58 Md. 399; B. & O.
R. R. Co. v. State, use Woodward, 41 Md. 300; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Kelly,
24 Md. 279; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Trainor, 33 Md. 554. And see Maryland
v. Miller, 180 Fed. 796.

Limitations.

Since the right of recovery for negligence causing death is altogether dependent
upon statute, failure to sue within time limited by this section operates as a complete
bar, notwithstanding art. 57, sec. 5, and although defendant was not suable in Mary-
land during the year. Swanson v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 156 Fed. 977.

The general rule is that where limitations is not a bar before suit brought, an
amendment of declaration when cause of action remains the same will not warrant
filing of plea of limitations, although period has then expired, and this is true though
the original declaration is bad on demurrer; contra, when amendment changes
cause of action. Limitations held not to be a bar. State, use Zier, v. Chesapeake
Ry. Co., 98 Md. 37. See also Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, use Nelson, 82 Md.
306. Cf. Hamilton v. Thirston, 64 Md. 256.

Generally.

Proof of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or advantage from a con-
tinuance of life of deceased is sufficient to support an action under sec. 1. The right
of action is not conditioned upon a legal claim on the deceased for support, and
hence may include adult children and a married daughter for whom the mother per-
formed services. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Hauer, 60 Md. 467; B. & O. R. R. Co.