Swits v. Swits
| Citation | 81 Conn. 598,71 A. 782 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1909 |
| Parties | SWITS v. SWITS et al. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Howard B. Scott, Judge.
Suit by Harriet Swits against Edith M. Swits and others for injunction to secure the reinterment of a decedent's remains in their original place of burial in plaintiff's lot, from which they had been removed by defendant. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Homer S. Cummings, for appellant.
John H. Light, for appellees.
It is provided by section 363 of the General Statutes of 1902, that "the custody and control of the remains of deceased residents of this state is hereby granted and shall hereafter pertain to the husband or wife of the deceased; but if the surviving husband or wife had abandoned, and at the time of death was living apart from the deceased, or if there be no husband or wife surviving, then such custody and control is granted and shall pertain to the next of kin; but the court of probate for the district of the domicil of the deceased may, at any time, upon the petition of any of the kin, award such custody and control to that relative who may seem to said court most fit, for the time being, to have the same." The case now under consideration presents the question as to the meaning of the words "custody" and "control" as used in this act. The plaintiff contends that these words relate primarily to the immediate possession of a dead body prior to interment, and that, when the statutory right has once been exercised, this right is exhausted.
In the construction of statutes, the intent is to be sought first of all in the words and language employed, and if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and clearly and distinctly express the sense of the legislative body passing the act, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. McKay v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 75 Conn. 608, 611, 54 Atl. 923; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 367. As applicable to husband and wife, the object and intent of the statute under consideration are obvious, plain, and unequivocal. They are expressly declared in the first portion of the act already cited, and every portion of this enactment relates to the object and purpose expressed in the opening paragraph. The second clause points out that relative entitled to custody and control in cases of abandonment when the husband and wife are dead. The closing provision gives the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes
...Savings Bank v. Brown, 75 Conn. 69, 71, 52 A. 316; McKay v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 75 Conn. 608, 610, 54 A. 923; Swits v. Swits, 81 Conn. 598, 599, 71 A. 782; Miner v. McNamara, 82 Conn. 578, 584, 74 A. 933; Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292, 299. 'In the absence of anything in a statute to in......
-
Kelly v. Dewey
... ... ambiguity and doubt, there is no occasion to resort to other ... means of interpretation. Swits v. Swits, 81 Conn ... 598, 599, 71 A. 782; McKay v. Fair Haven & W. R ... Co., 75 Conn. 608, 611, 54 A. 923; 2 Lewis' ... Sutherland, ... ...
-
Mad River Co. v. Town of Wolcott
...used in the text of the act, and if that is unambiguous there is no occasion to resort to other aids of interpretation. Swits v. Swits, 81 Conn. 598, 599, 71 A. 782; Parsons v. Town of Wethersfield, 135 Conn. 24, 28, 60 A.2d 771, 4 A.L.R.2d 330; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 C......
-
Royce v. Heneage
...is not subject to modification by way of construction. State ex rel. Rourke v. Barbieri, 139 Conn. 203, 207, 91 A.2d 773; Swits v. Swits, 81 Conn. 598, 599, 71 A. 782.' General Tires, Inc. v. United Aircraft Corporation, 143 Conn. 191, 195, 120 A.2d 426.' State v. Simmons, 155 Conn. 502, 50......
-
The concept of sepulchral rights in Canada and the U.S. in the age of genomics: hints from Iceland.
...Cemetery Ass'n, 481 S.W.2d 593, 595 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972). (307.) Holland v. Metalious, 198 A.2d 654, 656 (N.H. 1964). (308.) Swits v. Swits, 71 A. 782, 782 (Conn. (309.) Rekosh v. Parks, 735 N.E. 2d 765, 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). Though Rekosh gives the impression that divorce extirpates a r......