THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
11 iLiosiimn iMTHiv jgiiniii deiiiei io the iiteiest of cemeieiiies 
K. jr. MAIOM'T, 
243 State Street, CHICAGO. 
Subscription $i.oo a Year in Advance. Foreign Subscription $1.25. 
Special Rates on Six or More Copies. 
VoL. III. CHICAGO, APRIL, 1893. No. 2 
CONTENTS. 
Page 
POWER OF trustees TO SEEL LAND PURCHASED FOR A 
CEMETERY 13 
RECONVEYING LOTS IN TRUST 13 
MOUNT HOPE CEMETERY OF BOSTON NOT SUBJECT TO LEG- 
ISLATIVE CONTROL 14 
THE greenhouse in the CEMETERY 15 
greenwood cemetery l6 
EXTRACTS FROM THE RULES REGARDING STONE WORK AT 
SPRING GROVE CEMETERY. CINCINNATI 17 
THE CONGRESSIONAL CEMETERY AT WASHINGTON Ig 
TUBEROUS-ROOTED BEGONIAS 18 
*A VIEW IN MARION CEMETERY, MARION, O IQ 
BURIAL REFORM 20 
A SPIRITUALISTIC VIEW OF CREMATION 20 
DESTROYING MOLES 20 
THE DISPOSAL OF CHOLERA DEAD 21 
CEMETERY NOTES .21 
MEMORIAL CHAPEL, PINE GROVE CEMETERY, LYNN, MASS . 22 
CEMETERY REPORTS 22 
MACADAM ROADS 23 
CORRESPONDENCE 23 
PUBLISHER’S DEPARTMENT 24 
♦Illustrated. 
Power of Trustees to Sell Land Purchased for 
A Cemetery. 
Prior to the year 1883, the inhabitants of Orcas Is- 
land, Washington, or that portion of the inhabitants 
near Arbutus Point, on East Sound, had used a certain 
portion of government land as a public burying 
ground. In the early part of that year is was thought 
desirable by some of the inhabitants of that portion of 
the island to obtain the title to said tract, which re- 
sulted in the purchase of twenty-six acres from the gov- 
ernment, the patent to which was issued to three per- 
sons who were to act as trustees for the others, the is- 
land having been canvassed, and the people generally 
having contributed a dollar each towards paying for 
the land, though some gave more. On account of a 
large portion of the land being uneven, rocky and un- 
suitable for burial purposes, and a village having grown 
up and adjoining the two or three acres used as a ceme- 
tery, the trustees deemed it advisable to dispose of the 
balance of the property held by them and to remove the 
old cemetery to another and more eligible site. This 
was done with the concurrence of a majority of the 
contributors, who attended a meeting called by one of 
the trustees by postal card. When the new ground was 
procured, the privilege was given every one of the 
original contributors who desired, to select a lot in the 
new cemetery “without money and without price.” An 
action was, however, brought by some of the contribu- 
tors for the purpose of having cancelled and annulled 
the conveyance made by the trustees of the old ceme- 
tery, it being claimed that they had violated their trust. 
The Superior Court of San Juan county agreed with 
this, but the Supreme Court of the State (case entitled 
Guthrie v. Tullock) reversed its decision, holding that 
the purpose for which the land was sold and the use to 
which the proceeds were devoted, was but to carry out 
the purpose of their trust, and that there was nothing in 
their action suggestive of bad faith or unfairness on the 
part of those who acted as trustees, and that the trust 
had been executed in accordance with the expressed 
will of those for w'hom it was held. Furthermore, said 
the court, it did not appear that any of the original 
contributors w^ere to have any fixed, certain, or aliquot 
part of the whole tract, but it was the general under- 
standing that each one should have a burial lot in the 
cemetery, the dimensions of which were never fixed, 
and a right to vote at meetings. In all other respects 
the contributors were to have no rights other than those 
enjoyed in common by all the other residents of the is- 
land. By reason of their contributions merely, the 
contributors in this case were not entitled to any rights 
in the property purchased, for it is well settled that a 
mere general contribution to a fund for the purchase of 
land, the title of which is taken in another, will not 
create a trust in favor of the donor, unless, at the time 
of the purchase, it is understood that the person con- 
tributing to the fund is to have a certain proportion, 
such as a half, quarter, or other aliquot part, of the 
whole tract purchased. It is quite common for so- 
cieties having in charge the building of churches or 
public hospitals to solicit subscriptions for the purpose, 
but no one ever supposed that by such general donation 
he became an equitable owner of a proportionate share 
of such church or hospital. 
Reconveying Lots in Trust. 
Some months ago mention was made in these col- 
umns of an incident that transpired in Boston wherein 
was recited the fact that a young man had secured a 
loan from a money lender and gave as collateral securi- 
ty the deed to the burial lot in the Mt. Hope cemetery 
where his father and mother were buried. At the ex- 
piration of sixty days the note remained unpaid and the 
broker demanded that the bodies be removed and the 
lot duly transferred to him. The trustees declined to 
recognize the legality of the transaction, and refused to 
make the transfer. Whether or not the broker has 
brought suit against the cemetery we are not informed, 
but the chances are that he will lose the money he has 
advanced. 
The idea of securing positive assurance of the undis- 
turbed interment of their friends seldom occurs to lot 
