appropriate, su’jject to such reascnahle 
rules and regulations as may be imfosed 
by the authorities in control of the ceme- 
tery; subject also to the rights of the 
owner of the lot, where, as in this case, 
the interment is made in a lot owned by 
a third person; and further subject to such 
reasonable control, regarding the charac- 
ter of the monument and its inscript'on. as 
shall prevent any such infractions of those 
recognized rules of propriety as would 
shock the sense of the community or show 
disrespect or contempt for the dead, cr in 
any real sense do injury to the feelings 
of the surviving relatives. We think that 
a court of equity could and should exer- 
cise control, in its .discretion, in such mat- 
ters upon a proper case. * * * We 
are of the opinion that it was entirely 
proper for the widow, under the circum- 
stances, to so place the names of her 
father and mother upon said monument. 
Jt was done in pursuance of an agreement 
with her father, in consideration of his 
permission to erect such a monument as 
she desired, and such as would by reason 
of its size and location, prevent him from 
erecting his own m.onument on his lot to 
himself and his wife." 
The court refused to sanction a view 
asserted by the brothers of the deceased 
that because the monument was paid for 
out of funds of the estate in which they 
were interested, they had a part owner- 
ship in the monument. The Supreme 
Court said on this point ; 
"We find no case in which such principle 
of ownership has ever been recognized. On 
the contrary, it has been the recognized 
doctrine of the English law that property 
in monuments and gravestones remains in 
the executor, or in the person who erects 
them (if other than the executor), during 
life; and after decease of the executor 
(or other person erecting), then in the 
heirs.'’ 
"It will at once appear that any such 
principle of ownership, if recognized hy 
the law, would be likely to lead to most 
unseemly wrangles and to suits of various 
kinds of very doubtful solution by the 
courts.” 
From the 
Persons desiring to acquire lots in the 
cemetery, and not being able to pay the 
entire price thereof in cash, will be re- 
quired to pay not less than one-half of 
the price in cash, and to execute his note, 
or notes for the remainder of the price 
in such amounts and upon such time as 
may be mutually agreed upon. But the 
payment of such money and the execution 
of such note or notes shall not confer any 
title whatsoever upon the purchaser to said 
lot or any part thereof until all of said 
notes shall have been fully paid. And upon 
failure to pay any of said notes in whole 
PARK AND C E M ET E R 
Another case which bears a still closer 
resemblance to the one presented by our 
correspondent is that of Thompson vs. 
Deeds, 93 Iowa Reports, 228. A man who 
had been twice married was, at his desire 
and with his widow's consent, buried in 
the lot of his daughter by the first mar- 
riage and beside the remains of his first 
wife. Later his widow bought a $1,201) 
monument to erect over her husband’s 
grave and coping at a cost of $ii00 to go 
r.round the entire lot. The daughter re- 
fused permission for erection of the mon- 
ument and coping, whereupon the widow 
threatened to remove the remains to an- 
cthicr place where she could make the 
desired improvements. The daughter 
then brought suit to enjoin the removal. 
In denying the widow's right to disturb 
the remains, but holding that she was en- 
titled to construct the monument, although 
on a lot not belonging to her, the low’a 
Suprem.e Court declared; 
"The fact that the plaintiff holds the 
legal title to the lot w'herein rest the re- 
mains of her dead father is not, to our 
minds, of controlling importance, in deter- 
mining as to the right of the defendant to 
remove his remains. * * * For some 
reason, — it matters not what, — his daugh- 
ter is unwilling that her stepmother should 
erect a monument upon this lot, not only 
in memory of her deceased husband, but 
also in memory of his first wife, and of 
plaintiff's first husband. Ha\’ing assented 
to her father being buried in her lot, she 
ought not to be heard to say that his wife 
shall not erect thereon, to his memory, a 
suitable monument. * * * This daugh- 
ter and this widow should exercise a little 
Christian charity; should remember that 
whatever their differences may be, they 
should be lost sight of in the presence of 
the dead, and obliterated in a common 
desire and effort to suitably testify to their 
respect for one who was, as to cue of 
them, a father, and, as to the other, a 
husband. * * * We think the District 
Court erred. It should have entered a 
decree for plaintiff, enjoining the removal 
of the body of Philip Deeds, and author- 
Extracts from the Rules of 
Crown Hill Cemetery, Indianapolis. 
or in part, at maturity, the cemetery shall 
have the right, at any time thereafter, to 
enter upon said lot and remove any body 
or bodies interred thereon, together with 
all monuments or marking stones, to other 
grounds reserved for single interments ; 
and in such event, all moneys theretofore 
paid shall be deemed and taken as having- 
been paid in consideration of the right to 
bury upon such lot and the occupancy 
thereof for the time being, and for the 
price of said grounds to which such body 
or bodies shall have been transferred, and 
to cover the cost of transferring such 
145 
izing the defendant to erect upon the lot 
in which rest his remains a monument to 
his memory, with proper inscriptions. Un- 
der the peculiar circumstances of this case, 
defendant's right in this respect should be 
properly guarded, as to the size and loca- 
tion of the monument, having in mind the 
plaintiff s right to occupy and use the rest 
of the lot. We think that no inscription 
should be permitted to be placed upon 
the monument, in any way referring to the 
plaintiff or her first husband, whose re- 
mains lie in said lot. Defendant should 
not be permitted to erect a coping around 
said lot. To do so would be a virtual act 
of appropriation of the whole lot, which, 
under the circumstances, would, we think, 
be manifestly improper." 
One of the earliest American decisions 
bearing on this subject appears in the fol- 
lowing language of the New Hampshire 
Supreme Court announced in 1828 in the 
case of Sabin vs. Harkness, 4 New Hamp- 
shire Reports, 415, and still good law; 
"It seems that, by the rules of the com- 
mon law, those who have erected grave- 
stones may maintain an action for injury 
done to them during their time. But after 
their decease, the action, in such a case, 
beloiigs to the heirs of him, to whose 
honor and memory the stones were 
erected." 
To my mind the controlling fact of the 
case presented by our correspondent is 
that the husband of the deceased woman 
was permitted by her parents to erect a 
headstone over her grave, bearing a cer- 
tain inscription which did not displease 
them. In the face of this circumstance, I 
cannot see how, long afterward, the 
brothers have any standing to interfere 
with the husband's primary right to say 
what should be on the headstone. As 
intimated in one of the decisions ab- 
stracted above, the law gave the parents 
the right to make their permission for the 
interment of the deceased woman's body 
in the lot conditional upon the husband 
agreeing that her maiden name appear on 
the stone, but they did not exercise that 
right. — A. L. H. Street. 
Books 
remains, monuments and marking stones; 
and thereafter such proposed purchasers 
shall have no right or equity whatever in 
the lands so conditionally purchased. And 
in no case shall a deed be executed for any 
lot until the same has been fully paid for. 
1. The proprietor of each lot shall have 
the right to erect proper stones, monu- 
ments or sepulchral structures strictly sub- 
ject to the regulations governing the same. 
2. The proprietor of each lot shall 
erect, at his or her expense, suitable land- 
marks of stone, at the corner or bound- 
aries thereof, not less than two and one- 
Cemetery Rule 
