385 PARK AND CEMETERY. 
CEMETERY LAW AS SEEN IN COURT DECISIONS 
Title and Rights of Lot Owner 
For persons to maintain an action for 
negligence of the superintendent of a 
cemetery in disturbing the body of their 
mother in the course of preparing a 
grave for the body of their father, 
which they had employed him to do, 
they must show such interest in the land 
as would authorize their maintaining 
trespass for an unlawful entry of it, 
which is not the case where it is shown 
that the cemetery is owned and man- 
aged by an archbishop, in the charge of 
a superintendent, and that, though the 
grave has been used for 40 years by 
plaintiffs’ family for burial purposes, 
their right is evidenced only by a re- 
ceipt, “For one family grave * * * 
G. 91 R. 12 East” ; it not being shown 
whether what was sold was an easement 
to use a specific lot which would au- 
thorize the action, or a right to the use 
of a grave, which is a mere license, and 
insufficient to support an action of 
trespass. — Feeley v. Andrews, 77 N. E. 
766., Mass. 1906. 
Where testator's executors purchased 
a lot in a cemetery for the interment 
of testator and the members of his 
family, receiving a mere certificate of 
purchase from the cemetery association 
for the benefit of the estate, the legal 
title remaining in the association, no 
title to the lot passed to testator’s wife 
under his will, bequeathing to her a 
one-sixth interest in his estate, which 
could pass on her death to her children 
by 'a former husband. Only his widow, 
his children by both marriages, and 
their descendants were entitled to se- 
pulcher therein. — Robertson v. Mt. Oli- 
vet Cemetery Co., 93 S. W. 574, Tenn. 
1906. 
In an action of ejectment for the re- 
covery of a cemetery lot and for dam- 
ages against persons who removed cer- 
tain dead bodies from the graves in 
which they rested and reburied them 
in another lot, defendants were not en- 
titled to urge as a defense to the ac- 
tion that the bodies of the deceased, 
having been interred, should not be dis- 
turbed. 
Where one is permitted to bury his 
dead in a public cemetery, even though 
this be by license or privilege, he ac- 
quires such a possession of the spot of 
ground in which the bodies are buried 
as will entitle him to maintain an action 
against persons who, without right, dis- 
turb it, and such right is not lost by 
the death of the licensee, but is trans- 
mitted to his heirs. 
Iowa Code, Sec. 697, confers on cit- 
ies the power to regulate and provide a 
place for the burial of the dead, and to 
exercise over all cemeteries established 
by their authoritj^ the powers conferred 
on township trustees with reference to 
cemeteries. Section 587 gives such 
trustees having the custody and control 
of a cemetery the power to inclose and 
improve the grounds, erect proper build- 
ings, prescribe rules for improving lots 
or the erection of monuments, and to 
prohibit any improper use of the lots. 
The city of Keokuk provided by ordi- 
nance for the sale and conveyance of 
lots for places of burial, subject to such 
conditions and regulations as the city 
council should prescribe by ordinance 
or otherwise ; that every lot should be 
used by the proprietor only for burial 
purposes, should be indivisible, and 
should not be conveyed by the owner 
out of his family after an interment 
unless to the city, or unless the bodies 
had been previously removed therefrom, 
and further, that the proprietors should 
not allow interment in their lots for re- 
muneration. Held, that a deed, con- 
veying a cemetery lot for use only as 
a place of burial, under and subj'ect to 
the laws and ordinances of the city of 
Keokuk, gave the grantee a bare right 
of burial, and not such authority or sub- 
sisting interest in the real property as 
would support ejectment. — Anderson v. 
Acheson, 110 N. W. 335, la., 1907. 
Where a grantor reserved out of 
property conveyed to a cemetery asso- 
ciation a certain lot for burial purpos- 
es, such lot was not a part of his estate 
subject to partition among his heirs. — 
Sharp V. Sharp, 111 N. W. 767, Mich., 
1907. 
Cemetery Management 
Where a trustee for the benefit of a 
cemetery association removed from the 
locality where the cemetery was locat- 
ed, and did not devote any of his time 
or expense to it, but charged a com- 
mission of 2 per cent per annum on the 
capital of the trust fund, and had no 
interest in the maintenance of the cem- 
etery, he should be removed from his 
position as trustee. — Barkley Cemetery 
Ass’n v. McCune, 95 S. W. 295, Mo. 
App., 1906. 
Burns’ Ann. St. 1901, Secs. 4708d, 
4708e, 4708f, providing for enjoining 
the construction of a railroad on any 
ground held, used, or occupied as a cem- 
etery, or held for cemetery purposes, 
protects not only that part of the ceme- 
tery where there are graves, but includes 
all reasonable additions, even though 
they are not occupied by graves. Such 
a suit may be instituted by those hold- 
ing land for cemetery purposes, irre- 
spective of whether they hold the abso- 
lute title or hold it in trust. — McCann 
V. Trustees of Mt. Gilead Cemetery, 77 
N. E. 1090, Ind., 1906. 
A cemetery corporation managed by 
white persons cannot prevent the own- 
ers of a lot from burying on the same, 
though the owners are negroes, and 
though they have refused to accept a 
price offered by the cemetery for the 
lot. — Richmond Cemetery Co. v. Walk- 
er, 97 S. W. 34, Ky., 1906. 
Cemeteries and Nuisances 
Iowa Code, Sec. 697, authorizing 
towns to provide places for the inter- 
ment of the dead and to adopt regula- 
tions for their burial, confers discre- 
tionary powers on towns, but it does 
not authorize the creation and mainte- 
nance of a nuisance resulting from the 
establishment and maintenance of a 
cemetery. 
A cemetery is not a nuisance per se, 
and the legislature, in authorizing towns 
to provide burial places for the dead, 
did not contemplate that they would 
be so located as to be nuisances.. 
A purchaser of land near an exist- 
ing cemetery, though aware that the 
same is a nuisance, is not bound to sub- 
mit to the nuisance created by an en- 
largement of the cemetery. 
To warrant equity in enjoining the 
use of land for a cemetery on the 
