The Right to Bury a Corpse.--The case of Wynkoop vs. Wynkoop, before referred to in the JOURNAL, as involving the right to bury a corpse and to preserve the remains, was decided by the Supreme Court at Philadelphia, on Monday. The controversy was in relation to the body of the late Col. Francis M. Wynkoop. The deceased was buried in the burial lot of his mother, in the Mount Laurel Cemetery, in this Borough. Some days after the burial the widow took out letters of administration, and as such administratrix she proposed to remove the body of her husband to Laurel Hill Cemetery at Philadelphia.
    The undertaker employed to superintend the removal was refused admission to the lot in which the deceased was buried, in consequence of a notice from the mother and next of kin of the deceased. The widow applied for an injunction to prevent the mother from interfering with the removal of the remains. The Court here granted the injunction as prayed for by the widow, whereupon an appeal was taken by the mother, to the Supreme Court.
    Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court and after referring to the universal right of sepulture, he says:
    The executor or administrator must bury the deceased in a manner suitable to the estate he leaves behind him, and such funeral expenses are placed by an act of Assembly in the first class of preferred debts. When the body is decently and properly buried in an appropriate place, such as a family vault or burial lot in a churchyard, in or near the neighborhood of the residence of the decedent, it would seem that all was performed which the law required from the living. The duty of the executor or administrator is over, and also his rights, except in case of an improper interference with the grave, the body, or the grave clothes of the deceased. The claims of society have been entirely satisfied. It is of rare occurrence that any dispute arises after the burial, or that any case has been submitted to a Court for its decision.
    The law of burial in its relations to the place of interment and the protection of the dead body, was discussed at great length by the Hon. Saml. B. Ruggles, in a very learned report to the Supreme Court of the City of New York, in the matter of the widening of Beekman street, which took away certain vaults for the burial of the dead, and required the disinterment and re-interments in some other place, of the dead bodies contained in them.
    In that case the referee was of opinion that the claim should be allowed, and submitted to the Court certain conclusions, of which the second and third were as follows:--"2. That the right to bury a corpse, and to preserve its remains, is a legal right, which the Courts of law will recognize and protect. 3. That such right, in the absence of any testamentary disposition, belongs exclusively to the next of kin.
    The bill in the present case before the Court asserts a fixed legal right on the plaintiff in two capacities:--1. As Administratrix; 2. As to widow. As to the first, the absolute duty to levy terminated with the burial, and no subsequent expense would be a legal charge upon the estate of the decedent. 2. As widow in this case she would appear to have no rights after the interment. Suppose a woman had three husbands, who have all died leaving her a widow (3, Rawle, 304), is she to be burdened with the duty, and vested with the charge of their three bodies, against the expressed wishes of the blood relations and next of kin of each?
    We do not think the present case calls for the interference of a Court of Equity, and, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the decree of the Common Pleas of Schuylkill County be reversed, and the bill be dismissed.

Source:

Unknown, "Local Affairs, The Right to Bury a Corpse," The Miners' Journal and Pottsville General Advertiser, Pottsville, Pa., Saturday, 26 April 1862, page 2, col. 4.