Foley v. Broeksmit

• Decision Date: 04 February 1903
• Citation: 93 N.W. 344,119 Iowa 457
• Parties: J. P. FOLEY, Appellee, v. J. C. BROCKSMIT, Administrator of the Estate of Edward Lynch, Deceased, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

93 N.W. 344

119 Iowa 457

J. P. FOLEY, Appellee, v. J. C. BROCKSMIT, Administrator of the Estate of Edward Lynch, Deceased, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 4, 1903

Appeal from Lynn District Court.--HON. WM. G. THOMPSON, Judge.

PROCEEDING to establish a claim for funeral expenses attending the burial of Edward Lynch, deceased. The administrator pleaded that the expenses were extravagant and foolish, considering the condition of the decedent's estate and his social standing and station in life. Trial was had to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $ 455. The administrator appeals.

Reversed.

Smith & Smith for appellant.

H. M Troy and Redmond & Stewart for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

Edmond Lynch was about eighty years of age at the time of his death. He had for a number of years been a janitor in the general offices of the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railroad Company at Cedar Rapids. He had no relatives in that city, and boarded with a Mrs. Weir, who received her pay from the paymaster of the railroad company. His associates were generally laboring men, and his most intimate friend was a street sweeper. He left an estate valued at not exceeding $ 5,000. When he died, plaintiff received a call to go to the place where the body was lying, and to take charge of the remains. He embalmed the body, dressed it, furnished the casket, hearse, five carriages, chairs, etc., for the funeral, and presented the following bill to the administrator for payment:

Oct. 31.

To washing and embalming body

$ 25 00

Oct. 31.

Shaving

5 00

Oct. 31.

Burial robe

20 00

Oct. 31.

Burial slippers

3 50

Nov. 1.

Casket

425 00

Nov. 2.

Use of candelabra

5 00

Nov. 2.

Chairs and candles

2 50

Nov. 2.

Hearse

10 00

Nov. 2.

Wagonette

4 00

Nov. 2.

2 landaus, at $ 4.00

8 00

Nov. 2.

2 three-seated carriages, at $ 4.00

8 00

Nov. 2.

Personal services rendered

10 00

$ 526 00

Payment was refused, and this action followed. The trial court instructed: "(3) You are instructed that the estate of deceased is liable for all reasonable and proper expenses necessary for decent interment of the deceased, and suitable for the station in life of deceased. Now, in this case you will satisfy yourselves from the evidence whether the items of charge are reasonable, and in conformity with the station in life of deceased, or otherwise; and if, from the evidence you find that any of the charges in the account are not reasonable as necessary expenses attending the decent interment of deceased as funeral expenses, you will disallow the same, and allow plaintiff only what the evidence satisfies you the same are reasonably worth."

Defendant contends that the verdict is contrary to these instructions, and entirely without support in the evidence. The law with reference to such matters is well settled, and generally understood. Such charges are not, strictly speaking, debts due from the deceased, but charges which the law out of decency imposes upon his estate. And, so far as these are reasonable in amount, they take legal priority of all such debts; as, likewise, do the administration charges. A decent burial should comport with the social condition of the deceased and the amount of his fortune. Justice to creditors, as well as to one's surviving family, demands, however, that there should be no extravagant outlay to their prejudice. If due regard to the character and social or public standing of the deceased requires a more costly funeral, public or private liberality should defray the additional cost. "Foolish and extravagant funerals, ordered by those not immediately concerned in the estate, are not to bind the representative and the immediate family of the deceased." Schouler, Executors (2d Ed.) section 421. Of course, one who furnishes reasonable burial equipment should be allowed the value thereof from the estate of the deceased, although it was not ordered by the administrator, or authorized by him. But whatever is furnished should reasonably comport with the station in life of the deceased and the amount of his property. The privilege thus granted should not be construed into a license to plunder the estate.

Lynch was a Catholic, and his burial was in accord with the customs and rites of that denomination. This was, of course perfectly legitimate; but it is not shown, nor will we infer, that such customs call for gold trimmings or silk and satin linings of the casket. Our observation has led us to believe that this Christain denomination requires no more expensive funeral corteges for its members than any other. Surely, one may die in this faith without being troubled by visions of the undertaker plundering his estate. Seriously, the matter of a man's faith has little to do with the expenses of his funeral. It may, of course, call for some additional properties, which the law, out of regard for its policy of religious freedom, will consider as necessaries. But the mere religious faith of one deceased adds nothing to the value of what is or should be furnished. We may quite readily agree that all the items mentioned in the bill were of such a character that they should have been furnished without being bound to accept the prices affixed as reasonable. That is to say, the deceased needed embalming, he needed proper clothing...