Handlin v. Morgan Cnty.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1874
• Citation: Handlin v. Morgan Cnty., 57 Mo. 114 (Mo. 1874)
• Parties: J. B. HANDLIN Defendant in Error, v. MORGAN COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 114

J. B. HANDLIN Defendant in Error,

v.MORGAN COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1874.

Error to Morgan Circuit Court.

Anthony & Reynolds, for Plaintiff in Error.

E. L. Edwards & Son, with W. T. Pemberton, for Defendant in Error: cited Duval vs. Laclede Co., 21 Mo., 396.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a demand presented to the County Court of Morgan County, for an allowance for the burial clothes of one James T. Gorman, who is alleged to have died in that county, without means to pay his funeral expenses. The County Court refused to allow the demand, and the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. The evidence showed that the burial clothes were of the value of twenty-two dollars; that Gorman had a wife and family, and lived in Morgan county, and died in that county; that a few hours after his death his wife sent to the plaintiff for the burial clothes, and the person who went informed the plaintiff that Gorman had no means to pay for them, and that he must charge them to the county; that plaintiff furnished the clothes, and charged them to the county; that Gorman was a stout, able-bodied man, and had property of every kind after his death, as testified to by the probate judge, which was appraised at about two hundred dollars, and consisted of house-hold and kitchen furniture, and other personal property.

Upon this evidence the Circuit Court refused to instruct that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, but gave instructions at the instance of the plaintiff, to the effect, that if Gorman died and left no property sufficient to pay the plaintiff's demand, he was entitled to recover.

The defendant excepted to these rulings, and the jury having found for the plaintiff, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted. A final judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and the defendant has brought the case here by writ of error.

1. The plaintiff bases his right of recovery against the county upon § 6 of the act for the support of the poor, (1 Wagn. Stat., 997) which reads as follows:

“The County Court of the proper county, shall allow such sum as it shall think reasonable, for the funeral expenses of any person who shall die within the county, without means to pay his funeral expenses.”

It is very manifest that the legislature never intended the county should pay the funeral expenses of such persons as had sufficient means to bury them at the time they died. It was certainly contemplated that the widow or family would bury the husband who had left means sufficient for that purpose, notwithstanding the administration law might vest the widow absolutely with the whole of the property so left by him.

Our administration law is very liberal toward the widow. It declares that in addition to dower, she shall be allowed to keep as her absolute property, the family bible and the books not to exceed the value of two hundred dollars; all the wearing apparel of the family; her wheels, looms and other implements of industry; all yarns, cloth and clothing, made up in the family for their own use; all grain, meat, vegetables,...