28 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
Right of Widow to Control Burial of Deceased Husband. 
The right of the widow to control the burial of 
a deceased husband, as against the next of kin, has 
been passed upon by the Supreme Court of Rhode 
Island in the case of Hackett 7 ’. Hackett, 26 Atlan- 
tic Reporter, 42. The question was raised on a bill 
in equity being filed by Thomas Hackett to compel 
Arreletta Hackett to return the body of her late 
husband, Thomas F. Hackett, to its place of original 
sepulchre, from which she had removed it without 
the consent of the said Thomas Hackett, the father 
and next of kin of said Thomas F. Hackett. 
The deceased was the owner of a burial lot, one 
of a family group, in St. Mary’s Roman Catholic 
Cemetery in the village of Crompton, where he was 
buried, with the acquiescence of his widow. About 
six months afterwards she caused the body to be ex- 
humed, and buried in the Riverside Cemetery in the 
city of Pawtucket. She claimed that she was justi- 
fied in doing this, because : First, her husband had 
requested her not to permit his body to be buried 
in a Roman Catholic cemetery, but in a Protestant 
cemetery; second, she did not consent to his burial 
in St. Mary’s Cemetery, but, being overcome with 
grief, and with physical prostration, from nursing 
her husband in his last sickness, she yielded, under 
protest, to the demand of his relatives, for the bur- 
ial aforesaid, so far as to offer no resistance thereto, 
on account of their threats to take forcible posses- 
sion of the body, and of her aversion to the disgrace 
of any strife over his remains; third, as the widow 
of said Thomas F. Hackett, she claimed the right to 
control the place of burial, and had not surrendered 
this right. 
Upon the first and second grounds set up in the 
answer the court did not hear testimony, preferring 
first to consider the third ground, in which the 
widow claimed the right to control the place of bur- 
ial, as against the next of kin, which might be decis- 
ive of the case. 
In a former case (Pierce 7 ’. Proprietors) it was 
held that, while no one can be considered as the 
owner of a dead body, in any sense whatever, yet 
there is a quasi property in the custodian, in the na- 
ture of a trust for the benefit of all who have an in- 
terest in it, which the court will regulate. In that 
case a widow removed the remains of her husband, 
which with her consent, had been buried in his own 
lot, and there had rested about 13 years. The court 
held that, as the complainant, a, daughter, was then 
the owner of the burial lot which had been invaded, 
and so was the custodian of the remains, they should 
be restored to the place from which they were taken. 
There are other cases of this sort, where the ques- 
tion has arisen as to the right of the next of kin, af- 
ter burial; notably the cases of Wynkoop 7 ^. Wyn- 
koop, 42 Pa. St. 293, 82 Amer. Dec. 506, with 
notes. Report of Hon. S. B. Ruggles, (The Law of 
Burial,) 4 Bradf Sur. 503; Renihan z/. Wright, 
(Ind. Sup.) 25 N. PF Rep. 822. InBogertz'. City 
of Indianapolis, 13 Ind. 134, where the question 
was whether the city or the next of kin should have 
control of an interment, the court decided in favor of 
the next kin. In all these cases general expressions 
were used by the courts to the effect that the next 
of kin had rights exclusive of all others. Such ex- 
pressions were appropriate to the case under consid- 
eration, but are not to be taken as authority upon 
the question which is now before us. In Pierce z^. 
Proprietors, and Wynkoop z’. Wynkoop, the right 
of a widow to remove the remains of her husband, 
against the will of the next of kin, was denied upon 
the ground of her consent and long acquiescence in 
the burial; but those cases do not decide that the 
next of kin had a superior right to that of the widow 
at the time of the burial. The third conclusion of 
Mr. Ruggles, in his report, cited above, is “that 
such right, in the absence of any testamentary dis 
position, belongs exclusively to the next of kin.” 
But in a note to Weld z^ Walker, in 14 Amer. Law 
Review (volume i, N. S. , ) 62, it is said that Mr. 
Ruggles added a note to the original report, in ex- 
planation of the term “next of kin, ” stating that it 
was not employed for the purpose of denying or 
questioning the legal right of a surviving husband 
to bury his wife’s remains, or to reinter them if dis- 
turbed. In Snyder z’. Snyder, 60 How. Pr. 368, 
the right to select a place of burial was awarded to a 
son, instead of the widow. The son was born of a 
former marriage, and the widow was a second wife, 
who had been married to the deceased but four years, 
with no children; and the last two years of his life 
had been spent in a lunatic asylum. The widow de- 
sired the remains to be buried in a lot owned by 
her father, and the son desired to bury them in a lot 
owned by the deceased at his former home, in Con- 
necticut, by the side of his first wife and deceased 
children. Under these circumstances the court de- 
cided in favor of the son. The judge giving the 
opinion concluded with these words; “I mean to 
recognize the fact that circumstances may exist which 
should give the widow the preference over the son, 
but in this case I think the claim of the son is to be 
preferred.” We know of no case, says the court, 
that denies to a husband, who was not separated from 
his wife, the right to select the place of burial. Even 
in case of a separation the husband has been held 
liable for the expense of interment, which had been 
incurred by a relative of the wife without his know- 
ledge or consent. Ambrose 7 k Kerrison, 10 C. B. 
776. In Durell z'. Hayward, 9 Gray, 248, the 
court assumes “the indisputable and paramount 
