LEE V, MARTIN.

as such officer, no damages can be allowed based on future possible increase in, earnings by reason of compensation paid to such an officer. Such damages,
are speculative and remote.
Attorney for plaintiff, E. M. Robinson.
Attorneys for defendant, Hinddley and Ganson.
JACKSON, District judge. The plaintiff in his complaint herein alleges that he is a noncommissioned officer in the United States Army with the rank of corporal and that he sustained certain personal injuries by reason of being struck by an automobile owned and operated by the defendant near Corozal on or about the 7th day of May, 1917. paragraph 5 of the complaint alleges "that at the time of the plaintiff's. said injuries caused by defendant as aforesaid plaintiff had been nominated for a commission in the United States Army, and was in a, training camp qualifying for the same. That as a result of plaintiff's said injuries it will be impossible for him to physically qualify for theposition to which he had been nominated."
The jury empanelled and sworn rendered a verdict in favor of the~plaintiff in the sum of $750.
The defendant moved to strike from the complaint the allegations contained in paragraph 5 thereof above-quoted.
At the trial of the case the defendant also requested the court to. instruct the jury as follows:
The court instructs the jury that the fact that the plaintiff may have been nominated for a commission in the United States Army, as alleged in his complaint, and that he was in a training camp qualifying to take the examination to become an officer in the Army, can not be considered in assessing damages in favor of the plaintiff.
This request was refused by the court, and defendant's exceptions noted. And in its charge to the jury the court, affirmatively stated that the jury might, in assessing any damages to which they might consider the plaintiff entitled, take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff might in all probability have obtained the grade of lieutenant in theArmy had it not been for the accident in question. Armotion for a new trial has been made and argued, predicated upon the alleged error of the court in this respect. Upon a careful examination of the authorities relied upon and cited by counsel for the defendant the court is satisfied that error prejudicial to the defendant was committed in refusing to strike from the complaint paragraph 5 thereof, and in refusing to give the instruction requested, and in instructing the jury affirmatively as stated.
In Brown vs. Railroad Co., 64 Iowa, page 21, it was held:
The fact that an injured person was in line for promotion from the position of fireman to engineer can not be considered in awarding damages.