Hyperlawhypertext legal database Newman v. Stewart 127 N.Y.S. 866

← Cases

Newman v. Stewart

127 N.Y.S. 866 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. Decision date 1911-02-28 English

Delivered by FORD, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 866
NEWMAN v. STEWART et al.
(Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County.
February 28, 1911.)

Headnote

1. Dead Bodies (§ 1*)—Dissection—Rights of Hospitals—Statutes.
Under section 2213 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40), as extended by section 316 of the Public Health Law (Consol. Laws, c. 45), permitting hospitals to deliver corpses to medical colleges with the assent of relatives or friends, the consent of relatives must be obtained if they can
p. 867
be found, and reasonable inquiry must be made therefor before the assent of friends will suffice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dead Bodies, Cent. Dig. §§ 1, 2; Dec. Dig. § 1.[1] ]
2. Dead Bodies (§ 1[1] )—Dissection—Eights of Hospitals—Statutes.
Where it was not shown what, if any, effort was made to discover the relatives of a deceased person, except that the name of a woman was entered as “friend” in the hospital records, it was not a compliance with Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) § 2213, as extended by section 316 of the Public Health Law (Consol. Laws, c. 45), permitting hospitals to deliver corpses to medical colleges with the assent of relatives or friends.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dead Bodies, Cent. Dig. §§ 1, 2; Dec. Dig. § 1[1] ]
Action by Cora Newman against George T. Stewart and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants move for new trial. Motion denied.
Jacob Friedman, for plaintiff.
A. R. Watson, for defendants.

Under section 2213 of the Penal Daw (Coná’ol. Laws, c. 40), dissection of a human body may be performed with the consent of the husband, wife, or next of kin. This is extended by section 316 of the Public Health Law (Consol. Laws, c. 45), so as to permit hospitals to deliver corpses to- medical colleges with the assent of “relatives or friends.” A reasonable construction of this provision is that the consent of relatives must be obtained if they can be found, and that reasonable inquiry must be made to find them. Only in case they cannot be found will the assent of “friends” suffice. The evidence in this case did not disclose what, if any, effort was made to discover the relatives of the deceased, beyond the fact that the name of a woman was entered as “friend” in the hospital records. Her consent was obtained, and the post mortem examination made in reliance upon it.

This was not a compliance with the law, and the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial must be denied.