judgment for that of the company; its 
visatorial powers have no such scope.” 
On the point here involved, we may 
quote the further language of the court : 
‘‘The contention . . . that the rules and 
regulations in question are in restraint of 
trade is without merit. That doctrine has 
no application to the case of a private 
cemetery conducting its affairs in its own 
way, and by agents of its own selection, 
for the bona fide purpose of effectuating 
the objects for which the company was 
organized.” 
It has been decided by the Connecticut 
Supreme Court that it is a reasonable 
regulation that lot owners who desire to 
have their lots and graves sodded, grass 
cut, and flowers and shrubbery planted, 
trimmed, or removed, shall have the work 
done under the direction of the superin- 
tendent at certain moderate prices, and 
that no person shall be permitted to do 
such work at the instance of individual lot 
owners. (State vs. Scoville, 78 Connecticut 
Reports, 00.) In a similar case (Cedar 
Hill Cemetery Co. vs. Lees, 22 Pennsyl- 
vania Superior Court Reports, 405, 410), 
it was said : 
‘‘Ordinarily, a cemetery is laid out and 
planned according to a fixed scheme as to 
improvement of the real estate, the erec- 
tion of monuments, enclosure of lots, the 
character of trees and shrubbery to be 
planted and ornamentation in general. 
Anything which interferes with this gen- 
eral scheme is not only detrimental and 
injurious to the scheme itself but to every 
lot which enters into the combination. It 
is of the first importance, therefore, that 
the association should assume and retain 
the absolute control, as is subject to be 
done in and by the deeds of conveyance 
and the by-laws and regulations of the 
plaintiff company, of the erection of monu- 
ments and partitions between lots, the 
planting of trees and shrubbery and the 
general subject of ornamentation. This, 
in the very nature of the case can be 
done only under the supervision of one 
person, and in this case that person is the 
superintendent of the cemetery, who acts 
under the direction of and is supposed to 
be familiar with the plans and purposes 
and general scheme of improvements of 
the association. ... It is difficult to see 
how the rights of individual lot owners in 
respect to those things which are or may 
become objectionable to adjacent lots can 
he properly conserved without some such 
general and indeed exclusive control of 
the ornamentation of all lots as is pro- 
vided for in the by-laws to which excep- 
tion is taken. . . . There is no objection to 
the regulation of the plaintiff association 
on the ground of excessive charges or that 
the work necessary to be done in and 
about the care of lots of lot owners has 
not been faithfully and tastefully per- 
formed whenever requested.” 
In the Pennsylvania case it appeared 
that a gardener who had been previously 
employed by lot owners, individually, to 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
trim their lots, was notified that after a 
certain time he would be excluded from 
the cemetery under a newly adopted rule 
reading as follows : 
“To prevent confusion from the intro- 
duction of variety of workmen, the trus- 
tees have made arrangements to have all 
the excavating, as well as the building of 
foundations for enclosures and for monu- 
ments, the sodding of lots and graves and 
cutting of grass, planting of flowers, 
shrubbery, and trimming of the same, etc., 
performed under the direction of the 
superintendent at moderate prices.” 
A suit was agreed upon to test the 
validity of the by-law, and resulted in 
favor of the association, as above indi- 
cated. 
There are two noteworthy decisions in 
which it is held that, under the circum- 
stances involved in the cases decided by 
them, lot owners could not be deprived of 
the right to have a grave dug by their 
own emplo 3 'es, or to care for their lots 
( Ritchey vs. Canton, 46 Illinois Appellate 
Court Reports, 185, and Silverwood vs. La- 
trobe, 68 Maryland Court of Appeal Re- 
ports, 620). But those were cases where 
attempts had been made to shut off rights, 
which had long been exercised by the lot 
holders, by regulations to which they had 
never assented. These decisions respect 
the rule laid down by other courts that all 
lot holders are hound by rules and regula- 
tions in force at the time of their purchase. 
Disposition of Cemetery Lot Sale 
Proceeds 
An interesting law suit involving the 
rights of lot owners to compel trustees of 
an unincorporated cemetery association to 
account for proceeds expended for other 
than cemetery purposes was passed upon 
the other day Iiy the Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court in the case of Seitzinger and others 
against Becker and others, 101 Atlantic 
Reporter, 650. 
A coal company deeded a tract of land 
to the trustees of an Odd Fellow’s lodge 
on express condition that the land be im- 
proved, managed and held for the sole pur- 
pose of a general cemetery, “for the use of 
the people of the borough of Tamaquaand 
vicinity, and no discrimination shall be 
made for or against any portion of the in- 
habitants, but the rules and regulations of 
said cemetery shall be so formed as to se- 
cure equal rights and privileges to all,” etc. 
The trustees invested part of the pro- 
ceeds of lot sales in improving the burial 
grounds and in extending them and part in 
buildings used for other purposes of the 
lodge disconnected from the cemetery, such 
as lodge halls, etc. Complaining of this di- 
version of cemetery proceeds, plaintiffs, 
owners of lots in the cemetery, brought 
suit to compel the trustees to account for 
the funds so misapplied and to enjoin fu- 
ture misapplications. The trial judge 
granted the relief demanded, and this de- 
247 
cree has been affirmed by the Supreme 
Court on an appeal taken by the trustees. 
The first point made by the trustees in 
their defense was that because plaintiffs 
constituted only a part of the people of 
the borough and its vicinity, all of whom 
are interested in the matter, they could not 
maintain the suit. But the court applied 
Ihe rule of equity practice that where par- 
ties interested in litigation are very numer- 
ous, and cannot all be brought into the 
suit as actual parties without great incon- 
venience and oppressive delay, the suit 
may proceed at the instance of a part of 
the persons interested. 
Coming to the main question whether the 
trustees were entitled to charge more 
money for lots and the right of sepulcher 
than was necessary for the improvement 
and maintenance of the cemetery, and to 
use the surplus for outside purposes of the 
lodge, and interpreting the language of 
the deed under which the trustees held the 
land, the court said ; 
“While the persons for whose use and in 
whose interest this grant was made may be 
somewhat indefinite by reason of the geo- 
graphical limits stated, yet the intent, ob- 
ject and purpose of the grantor, as to what 
use shall be made of said land is very 
clearly and specifically stated, and posi- 
tively limited, and does in no way include 
Harmony Lodge as a beneficiary for the 
use, occupancy, or enjoyment of any of the 
land, or any proceeds, increments or bene- 
fits arising out of or from said land, incon- 
sistent with the purposes and provisions of 
the grant.” 
Finding that the trustees had acted in 
good faith, and in honest mistake as to 
their control over the lot sale proceeds, the 
court declared that there was no ground for 
substitution of new trustees, but granted an 
order compelling defendants to account for 
misapplied funds and enjoined them from 
future misapplications. “Said moneys, with 
the accruing interest,” the court further or- 
dered, “shall be invested and appropriated 
from time to time for the perpetual mainte- 
nance and proper care of said piece of 
ground, for the purpose of sepulcher, under 
the provisions set forth in said deed.” 
Taxation of Unused Cemetery 
Property 
Applying the cemetery laws of New Jer- 
sey in the late case of Fairview Heights 
Cemetery Co. vs. Fay, 101 Atlantic Re- 
porter, 405, the Supreme Court of New 
Jersey decided that plaintiff was not entitled 
to claim as exempt from taxation real prop- 
erty which remained in its natural state, 
although held for prospective use for burial 
purposes. The court said : 
“The cemetery acts have frequently been 
before this court, in various aspects of liti- 
gation, and from the views expressed as 
the result of those adjudications, the fol- 
lowing principles may be gleaned. The 
fundamental rule pervading all exemptions 
from the general tax burdens of the state 
