
    HENRY S. NASH, Respondent, v. THOMAS R. SHARPE, as Receiver of the Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.
    
      Action by professional man, to recover damages for injuries stistained on a railroad — "he may testify as to his past earnings for the purpose of showing his damages.
    
    Appeal from a judgment entered herein upon the verdict of a jury, rendered upon a writ of inquiry, at a Circuit Court, and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a reassessment of damages.
    This action was brought by the plaintiff, a dentist engaged in business in New York, to recover from the defendant, as receiver of the Long Island Railroad Company, damages for injuries received by plaintiff while a passenger on one of 'defendant’s cars.
    The defendant appeared in the action, but interposed no answer.
    The plaintiff’s damages were assessed by a jury at a Circuit Court, under the direction of the justice presiding, at $6,125.00.
    
      Upon, tlie trial, the plaintiff was alloived to testify against the defendant’s objection and exception as to the amount of his yearly earnings for the five year’s preceding the accident.
    The court, at General Term, said: “It seems to be settled that, in an action for loss of services, evidence of the nature and extent of the parties business, or how much he ivas earning from his business, or realizing from fixed wages, is proper upon the ■ question of damages. (Masterton v. Village of Mount Vernon, 58 N. Y., 391 ; McIntyre v. N. Y. Central JR. It. Co., 37 id., 287 ; Walker v. Erie It. R. Co., 63 Barb., 260.) If there is any ■distinction between the earnings of a professional man, and a mechanic or laborer, it is a question of fact to be considered by the jury, in connection with the surrounding circumstances. There is no good reason why a professional man should not be permitted to show what he was earning from his business at the time to which the loss refers, as well as a laboring man, who is employed under fixed wages. This must be so from the nature of the case, otherwise a professional man could give no reliable and satisfactory ■evidence of his loss.”
    
      E. B. Hinsdale, for the appellant.
    
      Homer A. Nelson, for the ■respondent.
   Opinion by

Pbatt, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

Judgment, and order denying motion for reassessment of dam■ages affirmed, with costs.  