funds of the estate for that purpose, the legal title remaining in the association, no right therein passes under the will of the decedent which would authorize a sale of the property to strangers, but it remains as a place for burial for the decedent's wife and his descendants.33 A strong reason why rights in a burial lot should not pass under a general devise in a will is because of the right of the surviving spouse or next of kin to properly preserve and protect the remains of the decedent. The right of custody of the remains and the right of property in a burial lot should go together, wherever it is possible. A sort of trust attaches to the land for the benefit of the family so that neither the surviving spouse nor a child can exclude the other from burial therein because of the want of title.84 §1455. Erection of Tombstone or Monument. By the act of burial is contemplated the usual incidents of a decent burial, included in which is the erection of a suitable tombstone or monument over the grave of the decedent. The cost of this is a part of the funeral expenses.35 The rule is affected, however, by the condition. 33 Robertson v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn. 221, 93 S. W. 574. 34 In re Waldron, 26 R. I. 84, 106 Am. St. Rep. 688, 67 L. R. A. 118, 58 Atl. 453. 35 Bendall v. Bendall, 24 Ala. 294, 60 Am. Dec. 469; Fairman's Appeal, 30 Conn. 205, 209; Crapo v. Armstrong, 61 Iowa 697, 17 N. W. 41; Pistorius' Appeal, 53 Mich. 350, 19 N. W. 31; Beel v. Briggs, 63 N. H. 592, 4 Atl. 702; Griggs v. Veghte, 47 N. J. Eq. 179, 19 Atl. 867; Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315; Webb's Estate, 165 Pa. St. 330, 44 Am. St. Rep. 666, 30 Atl. 827; Sherwood v. McLaurin, 103 S. C. 370, 88 S. E. 363; Gooch v. Beasley, 137 Tenn. 407, 193 S. W. 132. It is proper for the widow of a decedent who is also administra. trix to agree with her father, in consideration of his permission that her husband be buried in the father's cemetery lot and because of its limitations as to size, that of the estate. If the estate is insolvent, the rights of creditors are of more regard than those of the next of kin of the deceased, and in such a case the rule is to allow no more for funeral expenses than is necessary and reasonable under all the circumstances. This is determined to an extent by the rank or condition in life of the decedent, but is affected by the rule that one must be just before he is generous. The reasonableness of the amount to be expended for a tombstone or a monument over the grave of the decedent, or other funeral expenses, is as a general rule a matter to be determined according to the circumstances of each particular case, and rests in the sound discretion of the probate court. The question of the necessity or the reasonableness of the amount expended is always open to inquiry in the probate court.86 § 1456. Common Law Rule Requires Surviving Husband to Bear Expense of Burial of His Wife. The common law rule is that a husband is bound to bury his deceased wife in a manner suitable to her station in life, and is likewise bound to defray all her funeral expenses. This rule prevails in many of these United States, it being held that the liability of the husband as the monument erected to her husband shall also have inscribed thereon the names of her father and mother.-McGann v. McGann, 28 R. I. 130, 66 Atl. 52. 36 Pease v. Christman, 158 Ind. 642, 64 N. E. 90. There is no arbitrary rule by which it can be determined whether a monument erected by an executor to the memory of the deceased is appropriate and rea sonable in price, but each case must be determined by its own facts and circumstances. - Reynolds v. Jones (N. H.), 97 Atl. 557. - An executor is entitled to expend a suitable sum of money for the erection of a tombstone over the grave of his decedent, the amount of such expenditure being reasonable or not according to the condition of the particular estate. -In re Young's Estate, 92 Misc. Rep. 633, 157 N. Y. Supp. 494. to the expense of the burial of his wife is the same as his duty to support and maintain her and to defray any expenses occasioned by her last or any illness.87 This rule prevails only in the absence of a testamentary direction by the wife charging her estate with the payment of her funeral expenses, for the rule at common law and still prevailing is that if a wife in her last will directs that funeral charges shall be paid out of her estate, her estate is liable therefor.38 § 1457. Funeral Expenses Charged Against Estate of Decedent. Principles of humanity require a decent burial of the dead. A decedent may leave no surviving spouse or close relatives to attend to the arrangements for his funeral. In many jurisdictions the assets of the estate of a decedent are pledged by statute for all expenses as are reasonably incurred after the decedent's death in relation to burial and funeral charges, even before the appointment of an executor or administrator.39 The expense of the funeral is treated as a debt of the estate and this is held to apply equally to all estates. Thus where a married woman has died leaving a separate estate to be administered, the claim for funeral expenses may be enforced against it without regard to the liability of the husband.1o 37 Jenkins v. Tupper, 1 H. Bl. 90; In re Weringer, 100 Cal. 345, 34 Pac. 825; Staples' Appeal, 52 Conn. 426; Willis v. Jones, 57 Md. 362, 368; Sears v. Giddey, 41 Mich. 590, 32 Am. Rep. 168, 2 N. W. 917; Gallaway v. McPherson Estate, 67 Mich. 546, 11 Am. St. Rep. 596, 35 N. W. 114; Toppin v. Moriarity, 59 N. J. Eq. 115, 44 Atl. 469. See, also, Patterson v. Patterson, 59 N. Y. 574, 17 Am. Rep. 384. 38 Willeter v. Dobie, 2 Kay & J. 647; Kenyon v. Brightwell, 120 Ga. 606, 1 Ann. Cas. 169, 48 S. E. 124. 39 Phillips v. Phillips, 87 Me. 324, 32 Atl. 963; Fogg v. Holbrook, 88 Me. 169, 33 L. R. A. 660, 33 Atl. 792; O'Reilly v. Kelly, 22 R. I. 151, 84 Am. St. Rep. 833, 50 L. R. A. 483, 46 Atl. 681. 40 Morrissey v. Mulhern, 168 Mass. 412, 47 N. E. 407; McCue v. Where by statute the duty is imposed upon an executor or administrator to see that the decedent is decently buried, if such burial is ordered by another prior to the appointment of the representative, the expenses so incurred, if reasonable and the representative after appointment has assets in his hands for such purpose, must be defrayed by the representative. And this demand can be enforced in an action against him.11 § 1458. What Comprise Funeral Expenses. Funeral expenses are not limited to a coffin and a grave, but should be limited to matters necessary in connection with the funeral and the interment.48 Flowers are not, strictly speaking, a necessity upon the occasion of the burial of a decedent, but they are certainly appropriate and in harmony with the sentiment of the occasion. A reasonable expenditure in that behalf, although ordered by a housekeeper, there being no relatives to attend to such matters and no administrator appointed, is a proper charge against the decedent's estate. A reasonable amount for funeral notices, carriages, hearse, and for caring for the body of the dead, is a proper charge against the estate. The cost of transporting the body of the Garvey, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 562; Mc- 41 Tugwell v. Hayman, 3 Camp. (Eng.) 298; Rogers v. Price, 3 Younge & J. 28; Sweeney v. Muldoon, 139 Mass. 304, 52 Am. Rep. 708, 31 N. E. 720. 44 decedent from a distant point to his home for burial there has been held to be properly included in the funeral expenses. But the expenses must in all cases be limited to reasonable requirements according to the circumstances and conditions of the estate, extravagant expenditures not being allowed.1 46 Sullivan v. Horner, 41 N. J, Eq. 299, 7 Atl. 411. 47 Estate of Bradley, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 87. |