Kiser v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 06 March 1918
• Docket Number: No. 31859.,31859.
• Citation: 166 N.W. 577,182 Iowa 1249
• Parties: KISER v. CRAWFORD ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

182 Iowa 1249

166 N.W. 577

KISER

v.CRAWFORD ET AL.

No. 31859.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 6, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Muscatine County; A. P. Barker, Judge.

This is a suit in equity for an injunction to restrain the defendants from performing an autopsy upon the body of Louthera Kiser. Three of the defendants are physicians and the fourth is the sheriff of Cedar county. A temporary injunction was issued and served. A motion to dissolve the temporary injunction being filed, a hearing was had thereon. Mrs. Kiser died on February 25, 1917. She was buried on February 27th. The hearing on the temporary injunction was had on March 20th. The trial court held, in effect, that, in the nature of the case, the autopsy had become impossible, and that the question of right to perform the same had therefore become moot. On such ground he overruled the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. The defendants have appealed. Affirmed.E. A. Johnson, of Lisbon, and C. J. Lynch, of Mechanicsville, for appellants.

J. G. Kammerer and C. R. Stafford, both of Muscatine, and Chas. B. Kaufmann, of Davenport, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

The situation presented herein is a very peculiar one. Louthera Kiser was at the time of her death the wife of the plaintiff. She died at her home in Muscatine county. She was buried there. At the time of her death there was pending in Cedar county a certain suit or suits for damages in her behalf and in behalf of her husband by reason of personal injuries sustained by her in an automobile collision. One I. N. Kiser was the defendant in such suit or suits. On the day of the death of Louthera Kiser, I. N. Kiser, the defendant in the Cedar county suits, obtained an order in such suits from the district court of Cedar county for an autopsy upon the body of the deceased for the purpose of obtaining evidence in such damage suits. His claim, in brief, was that an autopsy would disclose that her death was caused by cancer and not by the alleged personal injuries for which the damage suits were pending. This order was issued without advance notice to the members of the family of the deceased. On February 26th the plaintiff herein, being the husband of the deceased, appeared before the Cedar county district court and moved to discharge such order for an autopsy. His motion was on the same day denied. A formal order was issued and commission of physicians was appointed for the purpose indicated. On the 26th and the 27th they proceeded to the home of the deceased in Muscatine county for the performance of their supposed duty. In the meantime the damage suits in Cedar county had been dismissed on February 26th. In their attempt to perform the autopsy the physicians encountered refusal both on the 26th and the 27th. After encountering refusal on the 26th, an attachment was sued out from the Cedar county district court whereby the plaintiff and his attorneys in the damage suits were cited for contempt, and whereby the sheriff was directed to take possession of the dead body. On the 27th this suit was begun by the plaintiff against the physicians and the sheriff, asking to enjoin them from the performance of the autopsy, and a temporary injunction was issued accordingly.

[1][2] The contention for the appellant is that there was no jurisdiction in the district court of Muscatine county to review or annul the orders of the district court of Cedar county. If the case could be made to turn upon this legal proposition, the position of the appellant would be quite unassailable. We have no argument for the appellee. Looking...