THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
in ILLIISTIIITfll MlliriL) JIUIIIIL DKOTED III IHE IIIEIESI HE CEMEEEIIIES 
Fi. jr. MAIOM'T. 
334 Deapborn Street, CHICAGO. 
Subscription $i.oo a Year in Advance. Foreign Subscription $i.»5. 
Special Rates on Six or More Copies. 
VoL. IV. CHICAGO, MARCH, 1894. No. i. 
CONTENTS. 
COMMON LAW DEDICATIONS i 
A PLEA FOR CENTRALIZING COUNTRY CEMETERIES 2 
THE CEMETERY IN THE COUNTRY 2 
CEMETERY NOTES 4 
*THE ARCHER MAUSOLEUM, WOODLAND CEMETERY, 
DAYTON, 0 5 
'CEMETERY PLANTING, II 6 
SUGGESTIONS TO LOT OWNERS-TO SHAKESPEARE 7 
RULES FOR STONE WORK IN GRACELAND CEMETERY, 
CHICAGO 8 
THOUGHTS ON TRANSPLANTING-CEMETERY REPORTS. 9 
CORRESPONDENCE 10 
THE QUESTION BOX ii 
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN CEMETERY SUPERINTEND- 
ENTS 12 
PUBLISHER'S DEPARTMENT 12 
'Illustrated. 
With this issue The MODERN Cemetery enters 
its fourth year, and we take the opportunity of 
cordially thanking all who have helped us along to 
the success attained. The very nature of the office 
of the Modern Cemetery requires the co-operation 
of all interested in the work and while earnestly 
hoping for the continued assistance of our many 
old contributors, we shall be very happy to find the 
list extended, for the broader the field of informa- 
tion and experience the more valuable the product. 
Common Law Dedications. 
The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has 
reversed the decision of the Circuit Court in the case 
of the Board of Commissioners of Mahoning County 
V. Young, holding that while lot No. 96 is held by 
a conditional title, yet the breach of condition re- 
lied upon as creating a right of re-entry is excused 
because the breach was the act of the law. This 
was an action brought by Charles C. Young to re- 
cover the possession of this lot, which had been 
dedicated in 1802, with lot No. 95, to be used as a 
“burying ground,” by his father, John Young, who 
originally platted the village of Youngstown, Ohio. 
The original plat made of the town was defectively 
acknowledged under the Ohio statute regulating the 
acknowledgement and registration of town plats. 
The result was, as the court holds, to constitute a 
common law dedication of lot No. 96 and other pub- 
lic places shown on the plat. That is to say, the 
public were thereby given the right to use lot No. 
96 as a burying ground, but no more; the absolute 
title to the estate not being transferred. Down to 
1868 this lot was used as a burying ground. In 
that year the council of Youngstown passed an ordi- 
nance by which all interments in the old burying 
ground were thereafter forbidden, and the remains 
of those already interred there, which should not be 
removed by friends and relatives before April i, 
1869, were ordered removed at public expense. 
This ordinance was executed, and all bodies re- 
moved. In 1874 the legislature provided that the 
county seat of Mahoning County should be removed 
to Youngstown, and in pursuance of the conditions 
imposed, lot No. 96, with other property, was con- 
veyed by ordinance to a committee of five citizens 
charged with the duty of erecting the court-house, 
to be used as a site for the same and other public 
buildings. But lot No. 96 was not so used. It was 
contended, on Young’s behalf, that the dedication 
being conditional, and only giving the right to use 
the lot for burial purposes, the subsequent action 
of the city authorities was a breach of the condition 
which gave him the right of re-entry. While gen- 
erally the owner of the absolute title may resume 
possession whenever there has been a full and law- 
ful abandonment of the use for which the dedication 
to use is made, the court holds that the breach is 
excused when the act of the law has prevented the 
further use of the property for the purposes intended 
by the grantor. The cessation in this case was the 
direct result of the law, which prohibited a longer 
use. Therefore, there was no forfeiture. Moreover, 
in such a case, the village or city council being but 
trustees, holding the title and protecting the use, 
the people of the municipality being the beneficiaries 
under the trust, the council, in their character as 
trustees, can do no act to defeat the beneficial in- 
•' terest of the public. Consequently, the trustees 
cannot without the voluntary acquiescence of the 
people abandon the use or defeat the estate. On 
these grounds the Court of Appeals decides against 
Mr. Young, and lays down the general principles 
stated. 
