AREA SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO..v. COSTEN. 173 ''• SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY -1 7 . COSTEN. . Opinion delivered July 6, 1925. 1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS—FUNERAL EXPENSES.-LThe estate of a decendent is chargeable with the reasonable and necessary expenses of interment of the body, in keeping with his circumstances and standing when in life. • DEAD BODIES—DUTY TO PROVIDE BURIAL.—Tlie duty to provide a decent burial rests upon the living, and from this duty springs a legal obligation of the decedent's estate to pay the expenses. -3. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS—BURIAL: EXPENSES AS CHARGE.— If the person who incurs burial expenses or who •dvances money to pay therefor is not a mere volunteer who acts officiously and without interest in the estate 'of the dedeased, the exi)ense incurred on money advanced for burial is a charge against the estate, which inures to the benefit of the person so incurring or ,advancing it. . 4. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS—BURIAL EXPENSES—PAYMENT BY w4tow. Payment by a- widow pa. ' the -funeral expenseS of her hsuband did not discharge the obligation of the estate, but Constituted a Mere transfer of his obligation tó her by way of -sub-rogation. . 5. WILLS—LIABILITY OF DEVISEE' TO PAY DEBTS OF EsTAit.— L rThe widow of decedent was entitled to enjoy the portion of her husband's estate devised to.her without assuming any obligation to pay the debts of the estate, where the will did not impose anY such obligation upon her. • Appeal from Green Circuit Court; W. -W. Baindy; Judge; reversed.
174 SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO, ; 1). COSTEN. [169 Mi.P. Huddles : ton andliamilton-E. Little,: for , aPpel-* Jeff Bratton,.for appellee. , -; . . , . McCuLLocii, C. 4. Appellee'S decedent, Greathouse, died in.Greene County, ArkariSas, oi , March . /12; 1923, leaving SilitViVing , his WidoW, , Ewily C.: Great-' hoUse; and several s children and 'leaking a . .ln,st Wig and testament, 'by which he deVised to bis wife, ']inilY C., his lot and dwelling house in the city of Paragould "for and . during her natural life, and at her death, if undis-posed of, then to my heirs' hereinafter named," and also bequeathed, to her . f 'all the household and. kitchen furniture, beds , 4nd bedding, cooking ,utensils, etc., now used by us in keeping louse and ...the Sum of $135 in :money." . Directions were made in the will *for :thd -payment to a lodge -of 9dd FelloWs the sum of -$100: Out of the ProCeeds of -4 life insurance policy, the Will-contains a residuary clause deVising, and bequeathirig the residueof „the ,estate ...14 3 ..he children and grandChildren of. the testator. _The.will .aIso contains a clause:confer-:ring' power upon , the ,:devisee; :Emily, C. , Greathouse, to -mortgage' : the-property -devised- "if ne-ce8shxy to 'False MOney' for 'her -'idaSonable Siipp . Ott 'anfd Maintenance during her, natiiral life " No appointment of, an . :exe-,cntor -was made in,:the will. The next day after the burial :of deceaSed th e . 'widow, Emily . C. -Greathonse,' . thd ',.riecdsSary .. 'fimeral )tp‘en-seS'," amoiinting to . $210.. .She died *. :Oh _' Oetoilaer 12, 1923, and appellant, was appointed administrator of her estate. The claim was presented by appellant :for the , eState . Of his decedent:against 'the estate • of ;W. C. Great-aPpellee'having beeh apPointed administratOr ,of thaf . estate,. and : the claiiii W4:s . alloW4 arid cl4sified by the probate conrt, but on appeal to the, circuit conrt the trial of the issues resulted_ in a judgment- in favor of : anbellee and against appellant 'for the . allowance 'of the claim. -
ARK.] SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. V. ()OSTEN. 175 It goes without question that the estate of a decedent is chargeable for, the reasonable. and !necessary expenses of interment of, theAody---• a cereinonial inter, Ment in keePing with the circurastances and standing of the deceaSed whenlin life:. -The .duty -rests : upon some .of' the living. , t6 'see . that the' right-lof decent: : burial is provided, and from this duty springs a legal• Obligation of the decedent 'S. : estate' to 'pay the expenseS:' Patte' rson v. 'PatterSo/i; 59 N. 'Y. 574. If 'the perion who incurs the expense or advances the rileiley to pay it' is .nbt Mere volunteer who acts officiously and without interest in the estate of the decedent, the charge against the estate inures to his or her benefit. This principle was announced by this court in the case of Brearly v. Norris. 23 Ark. 166, and the principle has been recognized by many decisions in other States. Jenks v. Terrell, 73 Ala. 238; Firdrice's Estate, 75 . 'Pa. ,St....220; Brown v. Forst, 95 Skillman's,.Estate, 146 Iowa St....601; Constantinides v. Walsh,146 Mass. 281. Under tho circumstanCes of this'-case, ,it . cannot be rightly • said that the wideWwaS amere Volunteer . and acted -officiously .and without intereSt in paying the - funeral . expenses of .her. 4eceasect, husband.: The . payment was, in' settlement of i the , claira of,the Undertaker, 7 whichywoUld- have been claim'againstihe estate, and , the aet- of the widow in making the payment liVa:8 ' 'hot a• discharge of the' obligation of ,the estate; but-was alnere transfer of thc-obli-' Watfl-a 's-dbrogafiori- torTthe widO The: last will and . testamenV• . ofr, the deceased linSband 'did not • .east upon , the widow the . hurden of . paying ' fhe debts of the .estate,. and'she Was therefOi ; e uder no obligation to .pay the debts out of-her ownestate or out of the, interest which -She . 'toOk- underithe -of • her' husband, for no - 'suCh condition of burderi Was'impoSed-UPOn• hei • by the tp.rrns of the will. Wisner v. Richardsan, 132 Ark. 575. Nor did the mere fact that the widow was authorized in addition to her life estate in the real . property devised
to sell or mortgage the property in fee to raise the money for her maintenance create any obligation to pay the debts of. the estate. She was entitled to enjoy the portion of the estate devised and bequeathed to her, without assuming the obligations to pay the debts, unless such obligation was imposed by the language of the will itself. The judgment of the circuit court was therefore erroneous, and the same is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.