3i6 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
Sec. 8!J51. — Cemeteries controlled by a 
city or town may be vacated on petition of 
five free-holders and on a showing ‘‘that 
such cemetery has fallen into neglect and 
disuse ; that remains * * * have been, 
from time to time, exhumed and removed 
therefrom on account of such neglect, or 
that such cemetery hinders and obstructs 
the growth of such city or town, or any 
part thereof, and that the same is injurious 
to the health of the neighborhood in which 
it is located.” A list of all persons buried 
in the grounds must be published for two 
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation 
in the county, tvith notice that after a cer- 
tain time, not less than sixty days after the 
last publication, the bodies will be exhumed. 
Relatives or friends may receive bodies for 
removal and reinterment. Unclaimed bodies 
must be reinterred in some suitable ceme- 
tery or burial ground near the city or town 
and at the expense of the city or town. All 
monuments, etc., must be replaced in proper 
position over the reinterred remains. The 
council or board of town trustees must 
preserve a record of the removals with 
description of the place of reinterment. On 
vacation of the cemetery, the grounds re- 
main the property of the city or town, sub- 
ject to conveyance in fee simple. 
Sec. 8952. — Cities and towns are given the 
power to receive by gift, purchase or con- 
demnation land to be used for reinterment 
of bodies removed from vacated ceme- 
teries. Lots are to be conveyed in lieu 
of lots held in the vacated cemetery, and in 
full compensation for the lot holder's inter- 
est in the old cemetery grounds. If the 
cemetery vacated he a private one, the city 
or town shall have a lien against the vacat- 
ed land for reimbursement for the expense 
of securing new land of equal area and of 
making the reinterments. 
Secs. 8952a, 8952b. — Provisions are made 
for re-interments of bodies lying in aban- 
doned cemeteries formerly controlled by 
church or religious societies. 
Secs. 8953, 8954. — Authority conferred 
for the formation of associations to take 
over town cemeteries, when ten or more 
lot owners constituting a majority unite for 
the purpose. Duty to honestly and faith- 
fully manage the grounds, and to orna- 
ment, beautify and improve the same, is 
imposed on the association, which is em- 
powered to levy assessments on ‘‘all lots 
therein for the care, improvement, mainte- 
nance and beautifying of such cemetery.” 
Power to hold funds in trust for such pur- 
poses is also conferred. 
Secs. 8955-8958. — Cities controlling ceme- 
teries are empowered to convey them to a 
board of from five to nine lot owners, for 
the purpose of control and management, 
the members of the board serving without 
compensation. The board becomes a corpo- 
ration, the members being rechosen one- 
third each year, as nearly as may be, for a 
term of three years. Specific provisions 
appear for filling vacancies, giving notice 
of elections, etc. The board shall be known 
as ‘‘The Board of Regents of 
Cemetery, of the city of , in the 
state of Indiana.” The powers conferred 
include the making of necessary rules and 
regulations, execution of leases and licenses 
for burial purposes, employment of neces- 
sary assistants and workmen, control of 
revenues and investments, purchase of ad- 
ditional lands, etc. Annual reports must 
be made to the city council of the asso- 
ciation’s financial condition and of the busi- 
ness done during the preceding year. Any 
deficiency in revenues or the cost of ac- 
quiring additional land may he covered by- 
appropriation by the town council. The 
board may receive deposits or legacies for 
lot care, the principal to be paid over to 
the city treasurer, bearing four per cent 
interest, which interest is payable to the 
hoard semi-annually for use for the trust 
purposes. Such funds are exempt from 
taxation. The principal may be invested by 
the city in its own bonds. 
(Cities may only control cemeteries be- 
longing to them. Bogert vs. City, 13 Ind. 
134. They cannot interfere with the estab- 
lishment of cemeteries beyond their limits. 
Begein vs. City, 28 Ind. 79. The advisabil- 
ity of establishing a city cemetery is a mat- 
ter lying within the judgment of the munic- 
ipal authorities. City vs. Hazelett, 23 
Ind. 186.) 
ASSESSING BURIAL GROUNDS FOR LOCAL IM- 
PROVEMENTS. 
A late decision of the Indiana Supreme 
Court, announced in the case of City of 
Gary vs. Gary Oakhill Cemetery Associa- 
tion, 110 Northeastern Reporter, 741, adopts 
the view that no express statute is neces- 
sary to exempt burial lots from local im- 
provement assessments levied by a city, if 
the lots are occupied by graves, or if they 
are privately owned for prospective burial 
use. But it is decided that where an asso- 
ciation holds grounds for future sale, as- 
sessments may be levied against such land 
to the extent of benefits actually received 
by the association from a public improve- 
ment for which the assesment is levied, 
except as there may be an express statu- 
tory exemption. The court said : 
Monument or Foundation 
Editor Asked and Answered ; Will you 
kindly give us your opinion on the follow- 
ing : In setting monuments on hillsides it 
is sometimes necessary to use a sub-base. 
Solid bases are used in a few cases to raise 
the superstructure to clear the grade on 
the upper side. At other times granite fac- 
ing of heavy pieces is used on three sides, 
the inside or core being filled with con- 
crete. In both cases the sub-base presents 
an exposed face of same material as the 
■‘But on the ground of public policy we 
are not inclined to believe that the Legis- 
lature ever intended that the sepulcher of 
the dead should be the subject of a lien to 
be enforced by a foreclosure and sale as of 
other property. The law makes no pro- 
vision for a personal liability in cases of 
local assessments, so that the only manner 
of enforcing the payment of such assess- 
ment is as we have indicated, the sale of 
the graves of the dead to pa}' for sewers 
and drains for houses of the living. The 
barrier of public policy will interpose to 
prevent such results. So much may be 
said for lots and parcels of ground now 
in use or occupied for burial purposes. 
‘‘The same rule should and does obtain 
where the lot or parcel of land is actually 
held hy the grantee or licensee” of an as- 
sociation ‘‘as a family burying ground, al- 
though it may not be in actual use. This 
holding is put upon the theory that the mak- 
ers of the Constitution, as well as the Gen- 
eral Assembly, ‘in common with the rest of 
mankind, did not think of the family bury- 
ing ground’ as property (Oak Hill Ceme- 
tery Co. V. Wells, 38 Ind. App. 479, 481, 
78 N. E. 350) in the sense of benefits de- 
rived from drains or sewers as intended 
for the improvement of land for the pur- 
poses of residence or business.” 
But as to tracts held by a cemetery as- 
sociation for resale in the future at a 
profit, the court declares that assessments 
are properly levied to the extent that such 
land is actually benefited or enhanced in 
value by a local improvement, provided 
that the Legislature has not decreed an ex- 
emption. 
Applying the statutes now in force in In- 
diana, the court decides that the law which 
provides that land used or occupied for 
cemetery purposes shall not be assessed 
for the construction of sewers or drains 
‘‘adjacent to the cemetery,” applies only to 
sewers and drains immediately abutting 
upon the grounds, and does not prevent an 
assessment against an association’s grounds 
not yet sold for burial purposes on ac- 
count of a sewer not approaching nearer 
than 60(1 feet to the cemetery, if benefits 
are received from such improvement. 
monument. Is this sub-base part of the 
monument or of the foundation? 
Cemetery Co. 
The problem presented here is a rather 
fine one to settle definitely, but we should 
say that the granite work of the sub-base 
should properly be considered a part of 
the monument, but the inside or core of 
concrete, ought more properly to be con- 
sidered a part of the foundation. In other 
words, it would seem to us to be a case of 
splitting the difference. 
ASKED AND ANSJKERED 
An exchange of experience on practical matters by our readers. Yon 
are invited to contribute questions and answers to this department 
