THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
29 
right, as well as duty, of a husband to dispose of 
the body of his deceased wife by a decent sepulture 
in a suitable place. ” See also, Cooney 7 '. Lawrence, 
II Pa. Co. Ct. R. 79 - Kut if as a rule, where there 
have been no discordant relations, a husband has 
the right to bury his wife, why should not the wid- 
ow have the same right with reference to his re- 
mains? A woman is naturally quite as sensitive in 
such a matter as a man. It would be quite as great 
a shock to her to have the body buried against her 
wishes as it would be to a man. Hers is a relation- 
ship closer than that of kindred, for it is the teach- 
ing of Holy Scripture: “A man .shall leave father 
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the 
twain shall be one flesh.” The chances of compli- 
cations by remarriage are no greater in her case than 
in that of a man, and the reasons which give the 
right to the husband are equally applicable to her. 
It would be a shock to the sensibilities of humanity 
to say that the reasonable wishes of a wife in regard 
to the burial of her husband should not be entitled 
to paramount respect, when such a right would be 
accorded to him. It is useless to say that a married 
woman cannot make a contract, for as a widow she 
is under no disability and the funeral expenses are 
a preferred charge on the husband’s estate. This 
is not a question of contract, nor of liability, but'of 
sentiment and propriety. In no case is it an abso- 
lute right, but, as this court has already said “a 
sacred trust for the benefit of all who may from 
family or friendship, have an interest in it,” which 
should be properly administered; and, as we now 
say, primarily administered by the wife, due regard 
being had to the circumstances of the case. As re- 
marked by the court in Scott v. Riley, 16 Phila. 
106: “A legal right of this character should be 
based upon natural affection or moral obligation. It 
should accomplish the object in a becoming man- 
ner.” It is also added that to give this right 
to the next of kin takes from the widow the 
rightto bury her dead, andgivesit to kindred, who, 
perhaps, had no affection for her husband, and very 
little of his blood in their veins. It also gives the 
right to classes, which might lead to unseemly con- 
tentions. In 10 Alb. Law J. 71, reference is made 
to the Secor Case, heard in the supreme court of 
Kings county, which was a suit by a widow to en- 
join a son from removing the remains of his father, 
which had been buried by the widow without dis- 
sent, to a lot purchased by the son for a family bu- 
rial place, pursuant to instructions from his father, 
and partly with his own money The court granted 
the injunction against the son. Mr. Justice Pratt 
remarked: ‘ ‘Those bound by the closest ties of love to 
the deceased while he was alive should render these 
sacred rights and they ought not to be left to others.” 
P'or t’lese reasons the court concluded that, as a 
general ru’e, the primary right to control the burial 
of a husband shou’d be with the widow, in prefer- 
ence to the next of kin, dependent, however, upon 
the peculiar circumstances of the case, or the 
waiver of such right by consent or otherwise. In 
all the cases the matter of consent is a controlling 
element, where the body has been buried. In the 
present case it is claimed that there was simply non- 
resistance, coupled with a protest, on account of 
threats and fear of a disgraceful scene, but no con- 
sent by the widow. If consent obtained by co- 
ercion, or by an undue advantage taken of one’s 
physical and mental prostration, be sufficient to 
vitiate a mere contract, fora stronger reason should 
it be so in a case which touches far more keenly the 
feelings, privileges, and comfort of one bereaved 
by death. So, in Weld 7’. Walker, 1 30 Mass. 422, 
under precisely similar allegations, a husband was 
allowed to remove the body of his wife, after burial, 
from a lot owned by members of her family to a 
lot owned by himself. 
Extract from Rules and Regulations of Edgewood Ceme= 
tery, Nashua, N. H. 
Owners of lots or graves will be required to keep 
the same in good condition, and can have them 
properly attended to upon application to the secre- 
tary or superintendent and payment of the fee there- 
fore. No outside parties will be permitted to con- 
tract for the care of lo.ts: this, however, shall not pre- 
vent any lot owner cultivating or caring for, in person, 
his own lot.- No work will be performed upon any 
lot upon which there remains on the first of April 
an unpaid bill of any preceding year. The super- 
intendent may, under the direction of the trustees, 
notify owners of neglected lots of their condition, 
and in case of continual neglect, so as, in the opin- 
ion of the Committee on Grounds, to impair the gen- 
eral appearance of the cemetery, such lots may be 
put in order by the trustees at the expense of the 
owners thereof. 
The owner of the right of burial in any lots may, 
by the deposit of 50 cents for each square foot in 
said lot, create a permanent fund, the income to be 
used forever to top-dress, cut, and take care of the 
grass on the lot, and water the same when provided 
for, any remaining income from the fund to be used 
by the Board as it shall deem to be for the best in- 
terest of the lot. 
The owner of the right of burial in any lot may, 
by the annual payment of one cent for each square 
foot in said lot, provide for the top-dressing, cut- 
ting and care of the grass, and watering same when 
provided for. 
