THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
JlSiriiiiiiy joiiiL [ifi«i!ii u int iiiEiitsT if ctMtifiiiis 
K, MAIOI-nr, 
334 Dearborn Street, CHICAGO. 
Subscription $i.oo a Year in Advance. Foreign Subscription $1.25. 
Special Rates on Six or More Copies. 
VoL. III. CHICAGO, JULY, 1893. No. 5. 
CONTENTS. 
DEDICATION OF STREET BY CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, 49 
A TALK ON ROAD MAKING 5 o 
FUNERAL REFORM 52 
THE CEMETERIES OF PARIS 53 
CEMETERY NOTES 54 
CEMETERY LOTS ON EASY PAYMENTS. LOCATION OF 
MONUMENTS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. DERIVA- 
TION OF HEARSES 55 
RULES AND REGULATIONS-SUGGESTIONS TO LOT 
OWNERS 56 
NOTINGS AT WAEBACK CEMETERY 57 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. THE CEMETERY SUPERIN- 
TENDENTS ASSCN r. 58 
SEVENTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE A. A. C. S 59 
PUBLISHERS DEPARTMENT 60 
EXPRESSIONS FROM SUBSCRIBERS Ill 
Dedication of Street by Cemetery Association. 
An incorporated cemetery association has the 
power to dedicate to the public for street purposes 
a strip of land owned by it adjacent to its cemetery. 
So holds the Supreme Court of California in the 
case of the Los Angeles Cemetery Association v. 
City of Los Angeles. (32 Pacific Reporter 240.) 
And the following facts of the case were considered 
to show such a dedication. On October 26, 1877, 
the Los Angeles Cemetery Association, a corpora- 
tion, was the owner of a tract of land in the City of 
Los Angeles, which included the strip in contro- 
versy, and on that day it filed for record a map of 
the tract, on which were deliniated the usual plats 
and avenues of cemetery grounds, and along the 
southerly and westerly sides of which were left 
blank colored strips, 40 feet in width, the one on 
the southerly side being now a portion of First 
street, and the one on the westerly side being the 
land in controversy. The map also showed that 
the only entrance to the cemetery was from the 
strip in controversy, and that the strip opened out 
at one end into First street, and at the other end 
into Broderick avenue, public streets of the city. 
About the time of the filing of this map the associ- 
ation planted along the easterly and inner line of 
the street in controversy a hedge fence, leaving an 
opening therein where the entrance to the cemetery 
was located, and also planted pepper trees for a 
short distance on each side of such entrance, which 
hedge fence is still intact, and is now, and has been 
since the year 1885, a good and substantial fence. 
In 1885 it moved a fence that had been erected 
upon the outer or westerly line of the strip into the 
inner line thereof, and adjoining the hedge fence on 
the easterly side thereof. Some time about the year 
1885, the lands adjoining the strip in controversy 
on the west side were laid out in lots, and spaces 
between them for streets, and among other spaces 
was one 20 feet in width, the full length of and ad- 
joining the said strip, and making therewith a 60- 
foot strip, known as “Evergreen Avenue.” Pre- 
vious to and since 1885, the association has sold to 
divers persons a great number of lots in its ceme- 
tery, and the only carriage entrance thereto fronts 
on the strip of land in dispute, about midway be- 
tween the north and south ends thereof. Since the 
year 1885, the said strip of land has been continu- 
ously used and traveled by the public as a public 
street, which use has been with the knowledge and 
consent of the association. On December 15, 1890, 
the city council of the city of Los Angeles duly 
passed an ordinance accepting all streets theretofore 
dedicated, or offered to be dedicated, by property 
owners for public use. Wherefore the court found 
that the said strip of land was a part and portion of 
a public street in the city of Los Angeles, known as 
“Evergreen Avenue;” that the association had no 
right to its possession, and that the city was en- 
titled to its possession as a public street. It was 
claimed, among other things, that the association 
having been organized as a corporation for ceme- 
tery purposes, “had no power, directly or indirect- 
ly, to dedicate its land to the public for street pur- 
poses.” But this claim, it was said, was sufficiently 
met and answered by the decision of the Supreme 
Court, reported in 95 Cal. 420, 30 Pac. Rep. 523. 
That case was between the same parties as this, and 
the question involved related to the dedication of 
the 40-foot strip along the south side of the associa- 
tion’s tract. It was held that the dedication was 
made and accepted, and that the strip formed a 
part of First street. And the use, that commenced 
as early at least as 1887, and was continued up to 
the time of the trial, was sufficient to show an ac- 
ceptance by the public without the formal ordinance 
passed by the city council in 1890. 
