The sun., 1872-08-01
The Law of Buri1l-A Remarkable
suit in Rhode Island.

Nt Law VI iAtHlUl tAAlbit
suit in Rhode Island.
Disputes about family lands are not uu-
commons; we sometimes hear of angry
contentious about family plate AMI
family Jewelry; in this city our courts
have recently been called upon TO tie
trrnne painful litigation about Il
family picture, but we believe that q
family controversy about n corpse is some
thing comparatively new. Intelligence OF
such controversy, however. comes 10 H.
from Rhode Island. whore an cNtiuordi-
many ,isc ha. just been decided in the
Supreme Court of that Sufc. 'nVolv-
ug the novel question whether tho wfr
or tho child oi a deceased husband aud
| father Is entitled t. the custody and car,
of his mortal rp Mains.
Mr.. WuurSG MErcArr prominent
Unitarian residing in Providence. par
chased a burial lot in the Nw'' Foln'
| Cemetery. near that city. som. ,ime prior
| To his death, which ocrurrr' III the month
of May. 1siG. 1t va. one OF fah'ly
gloup of lots, of vd'ch the others were
owned by his ,elatiyes. After death hi.
body was i,i!ed there with the approval
of his v.stow aud all the other members of
hj, Smily. There it remained undisturbol
ur thirteen years. In the mean time, the
deceased being iutostatc the lot had be-
come the property of his daughter Mr..
AIMIRA +. PIERCE.
About July. 1859. the widow appears 10
have made up her mind to obtain custody
Of her late husbands body, ana have IL re-
moved to another lot which she had re-
Gently pur, haScd in the same cemetery,
but not in the portion known as the Uni
tartan burial ground, With this intent she
presented 10 the proper officers written
application, signed 10y herself and six
others purporting to be relative of the de-
ceased, for the removal of the remains. 1t
| l. alleged that in fact but two of these per-
son, were related TO him, and that very
| di,tantly The daughter at once served
| upon the corporation owning the cemetery
! q written romonstrancr against thc pro-
| posed di-iuicrmeIt hut in -pitc ut her pro-
| test the body was talSon mp few days
| afisrward AMI placed in n new grave in
Mrs. MErcALr~ lot, where it still lies.
When this act became known both the
corporation and the widow Were served
with formal written requests to restore
| the remains TO their original resting place.
| and the present suit was instituted by the
| daughter, Mrs. PIERCE, IN consequence of
| the neglect 10 comply with this request.
1t ought To be stated, however, that the
directors of the cemetery passed rcsolu-
ton that the disintcIlnent was violation
Of the bylaws of the corporation.
This suit is brought on the equity side
of the court against the corporation to
compel il to replace the body in the COM
plainant's lot, and against the widow 10 en-
join her from interfering with such restor-
alton, or from afterward exhuIning t.c
remains again.
Thedefeuce Of the corporation was mere
| ly formal, denying the iuIi- diction of the
| court, but admitting every allegation in
tAe bill The widow pm IN a demurrer on
the ground that the state Of facts present
! cd by the complainant did not entitle her
| to any relief in a court of equity, and on
| lli~ issue Of law the case was submitted.
There can he no doubt that in a suit nt
| law for trcspass the daughter, being the
p1s-e.sor OF thcl0t from which her fathers
| body Wal taken, could recover damages
| against the widow for unlaWlullY break
ing INTO IT, and It was contendcd by the
respondent that this was the only proper
| remedy. The compliments counsel, how
| over, argued that a. courts Of equity have
Hloubted jurisdiction to protect the re-
pose Of the dead, they can also afford relief
against any injury arising from the dis
tmbance of such Iepose, when there is no
adequate remedy AT law,
On he other hand, the complainant has
suffered no injury which could not be re
| d,