48 FEDERAL snronrizzz.
A statute of Oregon (Comp. 1887, § 371) gives the administration of
a person whose death "is caused by the wrongful act or omission of an-
other"a» right to recover damages therefore, not exceeding $5,000. The
damages, when recovered, are assets of the estate, and must be disposed
of accordingly. They are assessed for the pecuniary injury to the de-
ceased person’s estate caused by his death. Nothing is therefore allowed
tfor the sufferings of the deceased, nor as a solace to the survivors.
Therightto these damages may be enforced in the admiralty, when-
ever the wrong which caused the death occurred, as in this case, on a
navigable water of the United States. See Holmes v. Railway Co., 6 Sawy.
,262, 5 Fed. Rep. 75, and cases there cited; also Ladd v. Foster, 31 Fed.
Rep. 827. l { -
In estimating the damages resulting from the deathof the deceased to
his estate, his age, health, habits, and disposition and capacity to labor_
and make and save money and acquire property must be considered.
,.H0lnws v. Railway Oo., 6 Sawy. 262, 5 Fed. Rep. 75.
¤ The deceased was about 40 years ot` age, and in good bodily health
- and strength. He was not in the full sense of the term a skilled work-
man; but his brother, the libelant, is a master ship-carpenter, and the
deceased worked at and about this bu_siness, and was considered a will-
ing, "handy man.", His employer at the time of his death, a master
ship-carpenter, with whom he was once ra. partner, gave him employment
about half the time at {ive dollars a day . Another master workman said he
paid for the same kind of work, four dollars a day. At the same time the
evidenceshows that he was what is called a "good fellow," given more or
less to drink and dissipation when not employed, and, although he had no
one but himself to support, died worth nothing. There are some circum-
stances, however, which tend to show that a short time before his death
he had gone to live with his brother, the libelant, and was intending and
attempting a new and better life. He does not appear to have been mar-
ried, and his relatives, so far as the evidence discloses, are the libelant
and a sister. , ,
. He was capable of earning probably $4 a day for 300 days in the year,
i and, supposing he would lay up $400 a year of this sum for 20 years,
the simple money value of his life might be worth the present sum of
. $5,000. , But it is impossible to say whether he would have done so or
not. It is possible that he might, but the probabilities are all against it.
The case of Railroad Oo. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90, arose under an Illinois
statute that contained a directionwhich, though not expressed in the
Oregon statute, is fairly implied in it. It reads: "The jury may give
such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with ref-
erence to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the wife and
next of kin of such deceased person, not exceeding the sum of $5,000.”
’ In commenting onthis statute the court, speaking by Mr. Justice NEL-
sou, says: A _
" We do not think it necessaryto prove actual pecuniary loss. It can rarely
be.done.. The attempt to do it would substitute the opinions of witnesses for
the conclusions of the jury. The facts proved will enable the jury to decide