
    HENRY KANZ v. J. NEILS LUMBER COMPANY.
    
    June 2, 1911.
    Nos. 17,027 — (124).
    Verdict not excessive.
    In an action to recover for loss of services of a son, seventeen years old, who was injured seriously, the court declined to set aside a verdict for $1,025, after it had received the approval of the trial judge, although the amount was greater than the supreme court , .uld have allowed. [Reporter.]
    
      Action in the district court for Cass county 'by the father of Peter Kanz to recover $2,000 for loss of services of his minor son. The case was tried before MeClenahan, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,025. Prom an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Thomas J. Davis, for appellant.
    
      Charles Loring and Samuel A. Anderson, for respondent,
    
      
      Reported in 131 N. W. 645.
    
   Per Curiam.

This was an action brought by the father of Peter Kanz, the plaintiff in the case of Kanz v. J. Neils Lumber Company, supra, page 466, 131 N. W..643, to recover for the loss of his son’s services caused by the accident. The case was tried with the boy’s case, and a verdict of $1,025 rendered. The only question for consideration that has not been disposed of in the other case is the amount of the verdict. While it is more than we would figure as the probable loss sustained by plaintiff, it has received the approval of the trial court, and we cannot say on the evidence before us that it is excessive.

Order affirmed.  