2656 ARTICLE 67

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. Admissibility of evi-
dence. 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. & O. 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 ap-
portionment 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. &. O. 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 Carty, 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 Trainer, 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 Maryland
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 amend-
ment 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, 94 Md. 256.

Declaration which discloses that suit not brought within twelve months is bad on
demurrer. State v. Parks, 148 Md. 479.

Generally.

This section referred to in construing art. 101, sec. 72—see notes thereto. Clough &
Malloy v. Shilling, 149 Md. 193.

Workmen's Compensation Act authorizes employer to recover damages from person
causing injury to employee, thereby adding to those who can enforce liability under
sec. 1. Storrs el al. v. Mech, et al., 166 Md. 124.

Workmen's Compensation Law (art. 101) adds an additional class that may sue
under this section, and included in this class are sisters. Mech v. Storrs, 169 Md. 150.

Cited but not construed in State v. Katcef, 159 Md. 273.

Damages recoverable by equitable plaintiff are measured by relationship of plaintiff
and decedent and the pecuniary benefit plaintiff would probably have received if de-
cedent had continued to live; obligations and duties incident to relationship; obligation
of child ceases when reaching majority. Assurance Corp. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 173 Md.
238.

Cited in construing Sec. 1. Dunnigan v. Cobourn, 171 Md. 26.

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 performed
services. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Hauer, 60 Md. 467; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State,
use Mahone, 63 Md. 145; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. State, use Kelly, 24 Md. 281.

All of parties entitled need not be joined as equitable plaintiffs, nor can those who
are entitled be prejudiced by joinder of some who are not entitled. Deford v. State,
use Keyser, 30 Md. 208.

This section does not deprive a plaintiff of the right to sue different joint tortfeasors
separately, although there can be but one satisfaction. There can be, however, only
one suit against same defendant under this article. State, use Bashe, v. Boyce, 72 Md.
143; Deford v. State, use Keyser, 30 Md. 208.