It is provided by § 363 of the General Statutes 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 оf the deceased; but if the surviving husband or wife had abandoned, and at the time of death was living apart from the deceased, оr if there be no husband or wife surviving, then such custody and control is grantеd and shall pertain to the next of kin; but the court of probatе for the district of the domicil of the deceased may, at аny time, upon the petition of any of the kin, award such custody аnd control to that relative who may seem to said court mоst fit, for the time being, to have the same.”
The case now under consideration presents the question as to the meaning of thе words “ custody ” and “ control” as used in this Act. The plaintiff contends that these words relate primarily to the immediate possessiоn of a dead body prior to interment, and that when the statutory right has once been exercised this right is exhausted.
In the constructiоn of statutes the intent is to be sought first of all in the words and language еmployed, and if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and clеarly and distinctly express the sense of the legislative body pаss
*600
ing the Act, there is no occasion to resort to other mеans of interpretation.
McKay
v.
Fair Haven & W. R. Co.,
As applicable to husband and wife, the object or intent of the statute under consideration is obvious, plain and unequivocal. It is expressly declared in the first рortion of the Act already recited, and every portiоn of this enactment relates to the object and purpоse expressed in the opening clause; the second clause points out what relative is entitled to the custody and control in cases of abandonment, or when the husband and wife аre dead; while the closing provision gives the Court of Probatе power to act when there is a controversy between the next of kin as to the suitability of the person in whom this statutory right is reрosed. From the entire Act it is apparent that its purpose is to avoid unseemly controversies over the remains of deceased persons, and that the surviving husband or wife shall generally have the custody of the dead body for the purposes оf burial, and the control of the remains after interment. ■ This right is not absolute, nor the judgment of the person in whom it is reposed conclusive.
In the present case, from the facts disclosed, it does not appear that the widow has so exercised her right аs to call for the interference of a court of equity.
After the death of her husband, it appears that the relations bеtween Edith M. and the plaintiff were of a hostile nature. No stone was erected to mark the grave of the deceasеd husband, although the body had been interred for two years in the burial lot of his mother. Under the circumstances then existing, the widow preferred to have her husband's'remains interred in a burial lot under her own control. After obtaining the necessary statutory permit, she cаused their removal to her own burial lot, where she has the right to be interred by the side of her husband. *601 Under such conditions there was nothing unnatural or unreasonable in the action of the widow.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.