PARK AKD CEMETERY. 
109 
architecture and standing upon a gentle 
sloping lawn backed by a luxuriant growth 
of shrubs and tall trees is admirably sit- 
uated and presents a most picturesque view. 
The audience room, closed upon both sides 
with a conservatory, is used by any and all 
religious denominations, where any form 
of burial ser\ices may be held amid the 
odor and loveliness of flowers, summer 
and winter. 
The receiving vault adjoining in the rear 
contains 130 niches substantially and artis- 
tically constructed, well ventilated and dry. 
The arched roof and dome has a setting of 
rich stained glass. Since opening the ceme- 
tery in 18fl’2, about 17,000 interments have 
been made, and the success of the per- 
petual care plan is attested by the growth 
of the perpetual care fund during the 
twenty-five years of the cemetery's exist- 
ence to over $400,000. 
Problems of Park and Cemetery Law 
A department of Legal Advice and Discussion on problems that confront 
parks and cemeteries. You are invited to ask questions zvhich xAU be an- 
szecred by an attorney zvithout charge. A. L. H. Street, Consulting Attorney. 
Restrictions on Disinterment 
Editor Legal Department : '“A owns a lot 
in what is known as an old cemetery, in 
which there are several interments. He de- 
sires to remove the body to another ceme- 
tery. 
1. What are his rights in this? 
2. Can the old cemetery company refuse 
permission to remove? 
3. Can they give permission, but require 
$25 for simply disinterring? 
4. If the owner desires to make the dis- 
interments himself, has he a right to go 
upon the lot and do so, if he does not in- 
jure the lot, drives or other lots? 
This question has come up with us am' 
will need settling sometime or other, and it 
seems to us that a charge of $25 is un- 
reasonable, and if the owner desired to do 
the work himself that he would have a per- 
fect right to do so, provided he worked 
no injury to others." — P. H., 111. 
The old cemeter}' company has no arbi- 
trary right to refuse to permit removal of 
the bodies to another cemetery, and if it 
attempts to act arbitrarily suit will lie to 
cn'oin it from such interference. 
But there are certain considerations 
which might justify the company in its re- 
fusal. For example, should it appear that 
one of the deceased persons left a will ex- 
pressing a desire that his or her remains 
remain in the old grave, the company would 
act within its rights in resisting a removal. 
Or should it appear that there are relatives 
of the deceased closer of kin than who 
oppose the removal, it would be proper for 
the company to obstruct a removal 
The law disfavors disinterments, in the 
absence of some good reason for the re- 
moval. But so long as there is no menace 
to the public health in removing certain 
graves, and no invasion of the wishes of 
the deceased or his surviving relatives, the 
next of kin are entitled to make reinter- 
ment. Especially is this true where the old 
.grave is in a cemetery that is falling into 
neglect. 
Certain it is that a cemetery companv or 
association is not entitled to levy tribute 
on the right of removal. I am clearly of 
the opinion that the company in question 
is not entitled to charge any part of $25, as 
a condition upon consenting to a removal, 
except as the charge may be re''psspr\' to 
reimburse the company again=t incidental 
e.xpense. 
From the trend of court decisions. I am 
also of the opinion that if there is no es- 
tablished by-law of the company requiring 
disinterments to be made by employes ot 
the company, the lot owner is entitled to 
make the removal personally, or by his 
own employes, provided that the work is 
done in a proper manner, restoring the sur- 
face of the lot in good order, and inflict- 
ing no injur_\- upon adjoining lots or other 
parts of the cemetery. 
But this seems to be a case for applying 
the well-settled rule of law, that a cemetery 
company or association can make reason- 
able rules and regulations governing the 
use of lots. And I should say that if when 
A bought his lot there was in force a rea- 
sonable rule controlling disinterments, or 
if his lot certificate or deed contained the 
common provision to the effect that he 
would abide by existing and subsequently 
adopted rules established by the company, 
and there is now in force a rule requiring 
the work of disinterring bodies to be done 
by the cemetery sexton or other employes 
of the company, almost any court would 
say that it is a valid regulation. 
Most of the courts hold that a cemetery 
organization is entitled to control matters 
pertaining to the construction of founda- 
tions, railings, fences, etc., in and about 
lots, in the interest of the cemetery grounds 
at large, and it occurs to me that the same 
considerations would apply with just as 
much force to disinterments. It is quite 
natural that A, or his employes, being in- 
terested only in the matter of getting the 
bodies out of the old burial grounds, would 
b,e apt to slight refilling of the graves and 
resurfacing of the lots. .'\t least, there 
would be an incent''"' o'd cemetery 
company to restore the lot in better con- 
dition than persons disinterested in the 
future of the grounds would have. 
But even under such a regulation, the 
company could not defend its act'on in re- 
quiring a lot owner to pay a disinterment 
fee grossly in excess of the reasonable 
expense Incurred by the cemetery. 
Reasonable Cemetery Regulations 
An ordinance requiring all graves in a 
municipal cemetery, and all vaults, to be 
constructed by an official employe of the 
cemetery has been upheld by the Georgia 
Supreme Court as being valid, in the re- 
cent case of Citv Council of Augusta vs. 
Bredenberg, fll Southeastern Reporter, 48fl 
The city of Augusta owned and main- 
tained a cemetery. An ordinance was dul\- 
passed declaring: "The City Cemetery 
shall be under the special charge of a com- 
mittee to be styled, 'The Committee of 
City Cemetery.' It shall be the duty of 
said committee, whenever it becomes nec- 
essary, to lay out or alter such avenues 
or walks and to make such rules and regu- 
lations as they may deem requisite and 
proper for the management of said ceme- 
tery, and those employed therein.’’ There- 
after another ordinance was adopted, 
which provided that the city council shall 
elect, "an officer who shall be known as 
‘cemetery brick mason and gravedigger.' " 
The ordinance also specified that the offi- 
cer should maintain an office in the ceme- 
tery, and provided that his term should lie 
for three years, and that he should receiie 
specified fees for digging graves and con- 
structing vaults: and provided, further, 
“that any brick mason shall have the priv 
ilege of doing this work when called on." 
This ordinance was amended liy another 
ordinance by striking out the words last 
quoted, and inserting in lieu thereof the 
words : “That any brick mason resident, 
and doing business in the city of .Aiygusta, 
shall have the privilege of doing any work- 
in the cemetery, e.xcept such work as spe- 
cifically provided for in section 2 of this 
ordinance’' (digging of graves and con- 
structing vaults). Prior to the amendment 
last mentioned a person had paid to t're 
city treasurer the customary price for cer- 
tain lots, and received certificates signed 
b\- the city sexton and countersigned liy 
the city treasurer, which, omitting dates, 
names, description of land, and considera- 
tion, were as follows: “This is to certifv 
that has bought of the city conned 
of .Augusta, section in the City Cem- 
etery, known on plan of same as 
section and number for the sum of 
$ , the receipt whereof is hereby ac- 
knowledged: and this certificate anq re- 
ceipt when countersigned by the collector 
and treasurer will give the purchaser a 
fee-simple title." After the passage of tlie 
ordinance last m.entioned the person hold- 
ing the certificates to the lots employed a 
person, who for a number of years had 
been city sexton, to remove the body of the 
deceased wife of the holder of the certifi- 
cates from one lot to another lot in the 
cemeterv, which involved the digging of 
