delivered the opinion of the court.
Swengel v. Chicago, Ottawa & Peoria Railway Co., 208 Ill. App. 525 (1917)
Oct. 16, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 6,460
208 Ill. App. 525
Alfred M. Swengel, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago, Ottawa & Peoria Railway Company, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 6,460.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. S. C. Stough, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 16, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Alfred M. Swengel, administrator of the estate of Anton Voitnar, deceased, alias Anton Bevrage, plaintiff, against Chicago, Ottawa & Peoria Railway Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover ¡damages for death of decedent. From a judgment for plaintiff for $100, plaintiff brings error.
Robert Carr and Butters & Clark, for plaintiff in error.
*526Abstract of the Decision.
1. Death, § 50b * —when evidence sustains findings in action by parent. In an action to recover for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s son, a passenger on defendant’s train, evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding for plaintiff %n the controverted allegations of defendant’s negligence, death of plaintiff’s decedent, and survivorship of his father as heir.
2. New trial, § 59*—when awarded because of inadequacy of damages in action for death. A motion by plaintiff for a new trial after verdict in his favor for $100, in an action for damages for death of plaintiff's decedent, was erroneously denied, where the main question presented was the wrongful death of a boy 17 years old leaving a nonresident father surviving with such expectation of pecuniary benefit from his, son’s continued life as might reasonably be entertained by a nonresident parent under similar circumstances, plaintiff being entitled on the finding of negligence causing the death of the son and survivorship of the father to a substantial verdict.
3. Death, § 73*—when instruction on right to consider testimony of witness before coroner’s fury is erroneous. An instruction that the testimony of a witness before a coroner’s jury might be considered, in an action to recover damages for the death of the decedent for other purposes than that of impeaching the testimony of the same witness in such action, was erroneous, where it was not claimed that the evidence was admissible for other purposes.
Duncan & O’Conor, for defendant in error.