Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-10-06
HUSBAND OBTAINS
W|FE'S DEAD BODY
BY COURT ORDER
No Property Right in Corpse Ex-
lists, According to Vice.
ChanceIlor's Ruling.

That there is no property right in
dead body was decided by Vice
Chancellor Howell in Chancery cham
bers today. where the contentious over
a. corpse occupied his attention for
some time. 1t was the first case of
its kind that has come before the chan
Gerry courts within the memory of the
Oldest lawyers connected with them.
The dead body in question is. that
of Mrs. Frances Hipp, who died yes
terday at her aunt's home, 1856 Fifth
street, Elizabeth. She was the wife of
Joseph Hipp, of % Geneva street, that
city. who 1t was claimed, had DESERT
ed her eleven weeks ago. She had de-
velped tuberculosis several years ago,
and this was the immediate cause of
her death.
AS soon as she died her aunt, Mrs.
Margaret Donahue, made arrange
ments for the funeral and engaged
James j. Higgins, local undertaken,
to emhalm the body Then the hus-
band, who had heard of his wife's
death, appeared on the scene togeth-
er with his father-in-law, John Bon
ner, of As Fifth street, and claimed
that he had a right to the body. 70
make his claim good he secured the
services of another undertaken, Robert
Mitchell, and there was a controversy
over their respective rights until it
was decided to appeal TO the courts.
Lawyers Appealed to.
Lawyers were called in. Abraham ].
David looking after the legal interests
of the Donahues and William ID.
Wolfskeil after those of the husband
and his father-in-law They hurried to
this city last night and secured from
Vice Chancellor Howell a temporary
restraining order which prevented
every party in the controversy from
moving in the matter until the court
had decided upon it today.
Mrs. Hipp had q small life insur-
ance policy, $3.50, made out to her
father, and 1t Is this amount which.
II is said caused an interest in the
disposition of the body The Donahues
were anxious that the undertaken they
had called in should be paid for his
brief services, while the husband and
his father -in-law decided that their
man should have charge of the body.
Mr.. David told the court that while
he knew that the responsibility for the
funeral rested on the husband, who
should see to 1t that the body was
properly buried, under the circum-
stances. a third party in this case
should be allowed to care for it. Suit
able arrangements should be made so
that one> or the other undertaken
should take charge of the remains he
said
Rights Of Third Person.
"A proper third person can act" he
insisted, "and he should be reimbursed
by the estate. If the husband cannot
be held, the estate should be. Any
body can have claim on dead body.
Anybody can own dead body, and
therefore anybody can have claim or
lien ON it."
After Mr. Wolfskeil had presented
his side of the case the vice-chancellor
said:
1T is held in this State that there
is no ownership in a dead body, and
the right of the husband. in his
capacity of husband, to bury the body
Of his wife has never been questioned.
"The body ought to be surrendered
to the husband for the purpose of
burial This case involves the ques-
tions of decency and public welfare.
and 1t has got to be dealt with in a
summary way.
"The' case is one that demands i'm
mediate action, and l think that the
law and equity in it and common de-
cency require that the body should
be at once surrendered to the his-
band"
Mr. David insisted that the ex-
penses SO far incurred should be paid,
but the court said that it had no
authority or control over this phase
of the controversy.