PARK AND CEA\ETERY. 
17 
Family Rights In the Burial Places of the Dead. 
A decision of more than usual interest to our 
readers has been rendered by the supreme court of 
Iowa in the case of Thompson v. Deeds. 
Philip Deeds was first married in 1837, lived 
with his wife until her death, in 1862. At her 
death, and by the consent of ,all parties, she was 
interred in a lot now claimed to be owned by their 
daughter, and which is in the cemetery at Lyons, 
Iowa. Her remains still rest in said place. He 
was married again in 1864, and lived with his sec- 
ond wife until his death, in 1890, when, with the 
assent of both, the daughter and widow, his re- 
mains were interred beside those of his first wife, 
as he knew who held the title to this lot, and more 
than once, during his life time, expressed a wish, 
that when he died he might be interred therein, be- 
side the remains of his first wife. 
It further appears that the widow’s own means, 
bought a monument at an expense of $1,200, 
which she proposed having erected upon said lot, 
in memory of her deceased husband and others 
buried therein. She also bought stone coping for 
the lot, at an expense of some $500. But for some 
reason his daughter objected to the actions of her 
stepmother, whereupon it was claimed that the wi- 
dow threatened to remove the remains of her hus- 
band to another lot, unless their differences were 
adjusted. The daughter then brought this action 
to have her title to the lot quieted, and asking the 
issuance of an injunction to restrain the widow from 
removing the remains of her father from the lot. 
Now the supreme court holds that the fact that 
the daughter had the legal title to the lot wherein 
rested the remains of her dead father was not of 
controlling importance, in determining as to the 
right of the widow to remove his remains. If the 
title was held by a stranger, or if he were buried 
in a lot under the mistaken belief that he or some 
member of his family owned it, there might be 
reason for removing the remains. As it was, 
the owner of the lot being his daughter, there was 
no reason for disturbing his remains. A proper 
appreciation of the duty we owe to the dead, due 
regard for the feelings of the survivors, and public 
health and welfare, all require that the bodies of 
the dead should not be exhumed, except under cir- 
cumstances of extreme urgency. 
Having assented to her father being buried in 
her lot, the court further holds that the daughter 
ought not to be heard to say that his widow should 
not erect thereon, to his memory, a suitable monu- 
ment. Deceased wanted to be' buried there; the 
daughter wanted him thus gratified, and he was 
buried in her lot; and, under such circumstances, 
the widow must be held to have the unquestioned 
right to properly improve and adorn his last resting 
place. It would be a doctrine abhorrent to our 
sense of what is right and just to say that, after de- 
ceased had been buried in his daughter’s lot, she 
alone should be permitted to testify to her affec- 
tion for him by the erection of a monument to his 
memory, and by otherwise adorning and embellish- 
ing his last resting place. This daughter and this 
widow should remember that their differences 
should be obliterated in the common desire and ef- 
fort to suitably testify to their respect for one who 
was, as to one of them, a father, and, as to the 
other, a husband. What matters it that the law 
has said that after burial of a husband the wife 
shall have no control over his remains; that his 
next of kin have the exclusive right of disposition 
thereof? This court has said that for some purpose 
at least, the widow is to be treated as next of kin. 
It always has been the duty of courts to see to it that 
the expressed wish of one, as to his final resting 
place, shall, so far as it is possible, be carried out. 
A decree, it is further held, should have been 
entered for the daughter enjoining the removal of 
the body of her father, but authorizing the widow 
to erect upon the lot in which rested his remains, a 
monument to his memory, with proper inscriptions. 
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the 
widow’s right in this respect should be properly 
guarded, as to the size and location of the monu- 
ment, having in mind the daughter’s right to occu- 
py and use the rest of the lot. But no inscription 
should be permitted to be placed upon the monu- 
ment in any way referring to the daughter or her 
first husband whose remains lay in said lot. On 
the other hand, the court holds that the widow 
should not be permitted to erect a coping around 
the lot. To do so, it says, would be a virtual act of 
appropriation of the whole lot, which, under the cir- 
cumstances, would be manifestly improper. Final- 
ly, it is said that the decree should be broad enough 
to permit both parties, as well as any of the kin of 
the deceased, to, at their pleasure, decorate the 
grave of the deceased with flowers, and, in so do- 
ing, not to interfere with each other. 
^•©orre^ponelence.i^ 
Removing Name Plate from Caskets, 
Edito}- Park and Cemetery: 
Sir: — In several parts of the Dominion of Canada there is 
a very common practice of removing the engraved name plate 
from the coffin previous to interment. I would like the opinion 
of yourself or some of your many readers as to the best way to 
discourage the practice, or if there are any cemeteries that pro- 
hibit their removal. I think it is a great mistake, and a very 
