Subsequent action(s) Hearing in Bank denied | ||
Court Supreme Court of California Full case name Susie T. Enos and Gertrude Willis v. Rachel Jane Snyder and E. S. Lippitt Decided December 21, 1900 (1900-12-21) Citation(s) 63 P. 170, 131 Cal. 68, 53 L.R.A. 221, 82 Am. St. Rep. 330, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 735 Procedural history Appeal from the Superior Court of Sonoma County | ||
Enos v. Snyder, 63 P. 170 (Cal. 1900), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California holding that a will could not serve to transfer a testator's dead body away from the next of kin, and that the next of kin's right to custody of a dead body defeats any right of the executor. The holding was at least partly superseded by statute in 1947, permitting testators to dispose of their remains via will for certain purposes.
Contents
Facts and procedural background
John S. Enos, formerly a California State Senator, died aged 72 in Sonoma, California on March 30, 1898 of a heart attack. At the time of his death, he had for several years lived with Rachel Jane Snyder, to whom he was not married. In his will, Enos instructed that the disposition of his remains would be left to Snyder. After Enos' death, Susie T. Enos and Gertrude Willis—John Enos' wife and daughter, respectively—demanded that Snyder release John Enos' remains to them. They commenced the action when Snyder refused this demand. E.S. Lippitt, the executor of Enos' will, was made a defendant upon his application. The lower court awarded judgment to the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed.
Holding
In an opinion by Justice McFarland, the court affirmed the Superior Court's invalidation of John Enos' testamentary disposition of his remains. In reaching this judgment, the court cited the 1882 English case of Williams v. Williams, distinguished O'Donnell v. Slack, 123 Cal. 285 (1890), and applied California law.
In Williams, the testator had instructed his executors to give his remains to his mistress for cremation. At the insistence of the next of kin, his remains were buried instead. Subsequently, the testator's mistress obtained a license to exhume and rebury the remains. She had them transported to Milan, cremated and buried, whereupon she sued the executors and next of kin for reimbursement of her expenses. The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division held that the plaintiff could not recover as, among other reasons, a gift of a decedent's remains is invalid.