THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
i IIIUSIIIIIEII MOITHLI JinilL DEFIED Id TIE IITEIIEST OF lEEIIEIEIIIES 
K. Jf. MAIOMT, F'tjfelistrea:', 
334 Dearborn Street, CHICAGO. 
Subscription fi.oo a Year in Advance. Foreign Subscription fi.25. 
Special Rates on Six or More Copies. 
VoL. III. CHICAGO, OCT. 1893. No. 8. 
CONTENTS. 
VALIDITY OF MORTGAGES OF PUBLIC CEMETERIES BY 
CORPORATIONS 85 
VALIDITY OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZED BEQUEST TO 
CEMETERY ASSOCIATIONS 86 
♦NOTES FROM GRACELAND 87 
IS FLOWER PLANTING DESIRABLE IN THE MODERN 
CEMETERY?-DISCUSSION 88 
CEMETERY RATES IN THE CITY OF MEXICO 89 
♦THE KENSICOCEMETERY-ATTHE SIGN OF THE SKULL. 9o 
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES-PLANT EARLY 9i 
VISIT TO THE GRAVEYARDS OF HAMBURG— CREMATION. 92 
CEMETERY NOTES— A CHINESE MONUMENT 9.I 
RULES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CEMETERY OF 
SPRING GROVE, CINCINNATI 
CORRESPONDENCE 
PUBLISHERS DEPARTMENT 
♦Illustrated. 
Validity of Mortgages of Public Cemeteries by Cor= 
porations. 
Where the purposes for which alone cemetery 
corporations may be organized are public, rather 
than private, lands acquired by such a corporation, 
and platted pursuant to the statute for cemetery 
purposes, the plat being recorded, and the land to 
some extent having actually been used for burials, 
are thereby dedicated to the purpose, exclusively, of 
the burial of the dead. After such dedication the 
corporation is without power, for reasons in v/hich 
the public is concerned, to convey any of such 
lands, except for the exclusive purpose of burials, 
or to mortgage the same. Its mortgage is wholly 
void, and the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable 
to preclude the corporation from asserting its in- 
validity. So holds the Supreme Court of Minne- 
sota in the case of Wolford v. Crystal Lake Ceme- 
tery Association, 56 Northwestern Reporter 56. 
The statement of facts in this case shows that 
prior to June, 1883, this association was, and ever 
since has been, an incorporated cemetery associa- 
tion, organized under the Minnesota statute. In 
that month and year it acquired the title to a tract 
of land of 40 acres, 10 acres of which became the 
subject of this action. In the year 1886 the corpo- 
ration had the entire 40-acre tract platted into lots, 
avenues, and walks, and the plat thereof, showing 
that the land was thereby dedicated as a cemetery, 
to be used exclusively for the burial of the dead, 
was then recorded. It was designated “Crystal 
Lake Cemetery.” After that, and in October, 1888, 
the corporation became indebted to Wolford for 
money loaned to it, and by it used in paying its 
debts, and in laying out and improving the ceme- 
tery grounds. This indebtedness was evidenced and 
secured by a promissory note of the corporation, 
and by a mortgage to him of the 10 acres in ques- 
tion, executed pursuant to a resolntion of the asso- 
ciation’s board of trustees. Wolford was induced 
to accept the note and mortgage securing the same 
by representations of the association’s officers to the 
effect that this lo-acre tract had not been laid out 
as a part of the cemetery, or actually devoted to or 
used for burial purposes. The representations were 
made in good faith, as the court found, but were 
untrue and Wolford was deceived thereby. In fact, 
not only had the platting and dedication, as above 
stated, been made and recorded, but the whole 40- 
acre tract had been inclosed by a fence, which on 
one side, at the entrance, bore the name “Crystal 
Lake Cemetery.” Thirty-four burials had been 
made on this 10 acres, but close to the south line 
thereof; and a temporary vault had been erected 
partly on the same land. That part of the 40 acres 
lying south of the 10 acres had been laid out and 
was being used for purposes of burial. The im- 
provements which had been made were almost 
wholly confined to that part of the grounds. In 
1890 Wolford foreclosed his mortgage by the statu- 
tory exercise of the power of sale, he being the pur- 
chaser at the foreclosure sale. No redemption was 
ever made. The present action involved the issue 
of title as affected by the mortgage and its fore- 
closure. The real questions were whether the cem- 
etery association had power to mortgage the prop- 
erty, and if not, whether it was precluded from as- 
serting its want of power. 
The purposes for which cemetery corporations 
may be organized are public, says the court, rather 
than private, and the land acquired by such corpo- 
rations, and devoted to the purposes of burial, are 
held in trust for public, rather than private, use. 
Every community needs, and ordinarily has, one or 
more places set apart and kept for the general burial 
of the dead. The providing and maintaining of 
such cemeteries is a matter of public concern, in the 
