This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and a judgment whereby plaintiff recovered general damages in the sum of $10,000, and special damages in the sum of $881.23 for the death of her daughter. Defendants admit liability and that the evidence sustains the findings of special damages. The' only question presented for our consideration is that the general damages awarded, in the sum of $10,000, find no evidentiary support and are excessive.

The action was brought under the provisions of section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rules governing the amount of recovery in cases of this kind are set forth in Bond v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 270 [ 113 Pac. 366 , Ann. Cas. 1912C, 50, 48 L. R A. (N. S.) 687], as follows:

The accident in which Mary Bay Ure, the daughter of plaintiff, was killed, happened on March 28, 1936. At that time the plaintiff, aged seventy-nine years, had a normal life expectancy of about five years, and Mary, aged forty-seven years, of slightly more than twenty-three years. As the damages awarded must be compensation'-for the pecuniary loss suffered by plaintiff, her life expectancy furnishes the limit of time during which the damages may accrue and for which they may be awarded. (Griffey v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 58 Cal. App. 509 [ 209 Pac. 45, 49 ].)

Deceased was a lady of refinement. She had been educated as a musician and had taught music until 1916. During that year she entered upon the study of theology in the Pittsburg Bible Institute. She completed these studies in 1921 and was ordained as a minister by the- Evangelization Association of that organization. She lived at the institute until 1928, assisted in religious instruction and served there as a Bible teacher and musician. She was also in charge of a mission in or near the city of Pittsburg. She received no salary for her services; only donations from communicants.

In 1928 deceased moved to her mother’s apartment in Pitts-burg and until early in 1935, served as housekeeper, .companion, and, during 1933 and 1934, as nurse for her mother. After she took up her residence with her mother she gave up her position with the Bible institute but continued to assist at the mission.

Deceased’s sister, Frances McClelland Ure, was also a minister of the gospel. She had been ordained by the same authority as Mary. Frances was pastor of a church in Farmingdale. In March or April, 1935, Mary went to her sister’s home in Farmingdale where she assisted in conducting church services. During this time the sisters made preparations for a motor trip to California. Frances secured a leave of absence of one year from her church and the two sisters left Farmingdale in July, 1935, expecting to make the trip to California and return within the year.

The denomination to which the two sisters belonged paid their pastors no salary but permitted them to retain certain do nations out of which they were supposed to pay living expenses. On the trip west the sisters conducted a series of revival meetings. They were given rooms and meals by members of the churches and were permitted to retain donations made at the meetings. They alternated in conducting services, each retaining the donations made at the meeting she conducted. They each paid their own traveling expenses between meeting places with the exception that Prances paid all expense of operating the automobile in which they traveled as she had a little money at the start of the trip. Mary’s income was not sufficient to pay her expenses and her income on the trip was augmented by several small gifts made by her mother. Mary was killed west of Indio in Riverside County on March 28, 1936.

Prances described the services which Mary rendered her mother from 1928 to 1935, as follows:

Plaintiff described Mary’s services as follows: “A. Well, when Mary first came home I was pretty well; but later than that, it was in 1933 and 1934, that I had a very serious illness. Q. And what, if anything, did Mary do in connection with the home? A. She did everything in the world that loving hands could do, or hands that might have been employed to do, except the scrub work and the laundry. Q. Will you explain to the court what she did? A. During my illness she took charge of the finances, and she just made the home. She did anything that a homemaker would do. Q. Did she perform the services of— A. Of a nurse to me. Q. Did she perform the services of a nurse ? A. To me. Q. To you, during your illness ? A. As no hired nurse could have done it. Q. Who did the cooking ? A. She did. A woman did the cleaning, but Mary did the regulation work of the home, and the marketing, and taking charge of things for me in every possible way. Q. If I understand you correctly, she did everything incident to maintaining the home for you? A. Yes, sir. It would not have been a home. Q. Except that you did hire the scrubbing or cleaning, and laundry done by outside help? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long were you ill, and for how long a period did Mary do this? A. Well, it was during 1933 and 1934 that I was really not able to do things. . . . Q. And during the time from 1928 down to 1935, when she lived with you, did she in any way contribute to the expense of maintaining the home? A. No; she did not receive enough to do that. Q. Who maintained and paid the expenses of the home? A. I did. But I always had a feeling, when I say ‘I’, that it was ‘we’. Q. And from 1933 down to the Spring, May of 1935, you say Mary took charge of the finances. Will you explain what you mean by that? A. I just mean that I was not able to go back and forth and do things, and that she took charge of it for me. Q. She took charge of your funds, and paid the expenses out of your money ? A. Yes, sir. Q. She did not furnish the money to pay for the upkeep of the home, herself ? A. No, sir. . . . Q-. Did Mary receive any compensation for her services at this Mission? A. No. It was just a service of love. Q. Did she earn any moneys herself from any source? A. No. Q. You supported her and the home, did you? A. It was our home. Q. The funds to support the home you contributed ? A. Yes, sir.

The plan of life of Mary and her mother to be entered upon after the trip to California is thus described by plaintiff:

The condition of the health of an aged plaintiff is always a proper subject for inquiry in actions of this kind as such evidence bears upon the probable life expectancy of the plaintiff. In reply to a question put to Frances concerning her mother’s health for two or three years immediately prior to the spring of 1935, she replied, “She was not well”. Plaintiff’s testi-" mony concerning her state of health prior to 1935 has been quoted. She further testified that since 1935 she had been “remarkably well”. Under this state of the record there is no justification for concluding that plaintiff had more than the normal life expectancy of about five years which actuaries give to persons of her age.

It is clear that deceased had no earnings, as such are usually known, for many years before her death, and that under the plan of the future life to be entered upon by her mother and herself, she would have had no earnings, had she lived, during the balance of her mother’s life.

The evidence bearing upon the value of the services to be performed by Mary for her mother, had Mary lived, is extremely sketchy. There is no showing of the size of the apartment which Mary kept for the plaintiff. There is no showing of the time- Mary had devoted to this work. There is no proof of the reasonable value of these services. Proof of the reasonable value of the services of a housekeeper is easy to obtain. The value of the board and room furnished by plaintiff to Mary is also capable of proof and should have been offset against the value of Mary’s services. (Griffey v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., supra.) As Mary had no income it is probable that plaintiff had furnished her with clothes and personal effects. The record is silent on this question.

In the case of Griffey v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., supra, a father fifty-eight years of age, recovered $8,000 for the death of a daughter twenty-four years of age who at the time of her death was acting as his housekeeper. An appeal was taken from an order granting a new trial. In affirming the order because of excessive damages it was said:

In Ray v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 329 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 812 ], the court held the awards of $12,500 in favor of each of two adult children for the deaths of their parents grossly excessive. The court there said:

The case of Dickinson v. Southern Pac. Co., 172 Cal. 727 [ 158 Pac. 183 ], is of assistance here. The action was brought by the administrator of the estate of Samuel Dickinson to recover damages for his death on behalf of his heirs. General damages in the sum of. $10,000 were awarded. In reversing the judgment the Supreme Court said:

When we measure the facts of the instant case by the rules we have cited, and compare the amount here awarded the single plaintiff, with the awards held excessive where there were several plaintiffs, each of whom was entitled to compensation for his pecuniary loss, the conclusion is inevitable that the award of $10,000 general damages cannot be sustained without some competent evidence supporting the finding that the services which would have been rendered by Mary, had she lived, during the five years of the normal life expectancy of plaintiff were reasonably worth the net sum of $10,000, or $2,000 per year. The reasonable value of such services were susceptible of proof. The reasonable value of the benefits conferred on Mary by plaintiff in furnishing a home and the expenses of life were equally susceptible of proof. No such proof is in the record. We conclude, therefore, that the finding of general damages in the sum of $10,000 is not supported by the evidence and that on the record before us damages in that amount must be held to be excessive.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial, solely upon the issue of the amount of general damages, with directions to the trial court to render judgment in favor- of plaintiff for the amount of damages so found upon a determination of that issue, plus special damages in the sum of $881.23. The attempted appeal from the order denying the motion for new trial is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., concurred.

A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 21, 1938.