121 
THE MONUMENTAL NEWS. 
MISSOURI PARK AND CEMETERY 
The Missouri Cemetery and Park 
Improvement Association held its 
second meeting at Kansas City, July 
15, pursuant to arrangements made at 
Boonville, Mo., and the invitation and 
call issued by the cemetery men of 
Kansas City. The meeting was called 
to order in the committee room at 
the Coates house at 11 a. m.. Dr. Wm. 
Mittlebach, of Boonville, presiding, 
and E. L. Burch, of Jefferson City, 
secretary. 
A short address was then given by 
President William IMittebach, of 
Boonville, explaining the objects and 
purposes of the association. He said 
in part: 
PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 
I don’t expect a mushroom growth, but a 
steady and active increase of membership 
that will carry out the objects of the asso- 
ciation properly. 
There is much work to be done in this 
great state of ours, and the people must be 
enlisted wuth us. On the officers and mem- 
bers of this association much depends, as 
'to the benefits to be derived from organi- 
zation. The several sections of the state must 
in turn be visited and meetings held there, 
so that the people will learn of our work 
and objects. Literature upon such topics 
as “perpetual care,’’ “laying out new ceme- 
CEMETERY 
Burial and Burial Expenses 
The supreme court of Indiana says, 
in the case of Hildebrand vs. Kinney, 
Administrator, 87 Northeastern Re- 
porter, 832, where the plaintiff pro- 
cured an undertaker to. furnish burial 
and accessories thereto, and procured 
a burial vault for the decedent and 
paid therefor $45, a reasonable 
charge, as found by the court, that 
this court has held that in case of 
solvent estates, as an incident of 
burial, a tombstone or monument may 
be erected by the heirs, and required 
to be paid for by the administrator. 
Pea.se, Administrator, vs. Christman, 
158 Ind. 642. The law imposes the 
duty of burial of the dead, and it 
is not an obligation arising out of 
contract, any more than a judgment 
is a contract; and, where the duty 
exists, it may be discharged by kin- 
dred, or by third persons, and the law 
imposes the charge upon the estate. 
Patterson vs. Patterson, 59 N. Y. 574; 
Rappelyea vs. Russell, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 
214; Parker vs. Lewis, 13 N. C. 21; 
Allen vs. Allen, 3 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 
524; in re Miller, 4 Redf. Sur. (N. Y.) 
302; McCue vs. Garvey, 14 Hun (N. 
Y.) 562; France’s Estate, 75 Pa. 220; 
Sullivan vs. Horner, 41 N. J. Eq. 
299, 7 Atl. 411; Wentworth on Ex- 
ecutors, 258. 
teries,’’ “improved methods of interment,’’ 
“drainage,” etc., must be circulated; “ceme- 
tery endo-wment” must be preached and 
other modern methods of cemetery work 
advertised; legislation requiring statistics 
on all births and deaths, on proper re.cords 
of interments, and requiring accurate finan- 
cial reports and data. In fact, your presi- 
dent is of the opinion that all cemeteries 
should TO a certain extent be under the 
control of the state, and that holding ceme- 
tery property for private gain should be 
prohibited by law. 
This association, I believe, should not only 
extend its influence and work over ceme- 
teries, but Should also include public parks. 
The national association did this for nearly 
20 years, or \intil each branch was strong 
enough to carry on its own work. To that 
end I recommend a slight change in the 
name of our association, and suggest it be 
styled “The Missouri Cemetery and Park 
Improvement Association.” 
s.rong committee on legislation is 
needed if the several suggested laws are to 
be obtained. 
Before closing, I desire to call your at- 
tention to “Park and Cemetery,” a publica- 
tion issued monthly and that is doing 
wonderful work in bringing modern and im- 
proved park and cemetery work to the 
front. Everyone interested in such work 
should be a reader of this wide-awake and 
modern journal. 
I wish to thank those active in organiz- 
ing this association and through whose help 
it has been possible to launch the Missouri 
Cemetery Improvement Association. 
The minutes of the meeting held 
Furthermore, the court thinks that 
the Indiana legislature intended to 
classify the charges against the estate 
of decedents, and that the rule is not 
different with respect to solvent and 
insolvent estates, unless specific liens 
absorb the property, and that this 
classification as to expenses of ad- 
ministration and expenses of the fun- 
eral of the decedent is an arbitrary 
one, applicable to those charges which 
are not debts in the general sense of 
the word. The expenses of admin- 
istration and of the funeral of the 
deceased are nearly allied to the ex- 
penses of the execution of a trust, 
liabilities not imposed by contract, 
but by general principles of public 
policy. The six years’ statute of 
limitation can no more be interposed 
to a claim for funeral expenses than 
to the costs of administration, and 
it will hardly be claimed that a statute 
as to accounts can apply to such 
charges which do not arise from con- 
tract, but by statute. Nor are fun- 
eral expenses different from costs of 
administration because incurred before 
administration; for, when the appoint- 
ment is made, it relates back to the 
death of the decedent, for the pur- 
pose of preserving any rights in favor 
of the estate, and one of the rights 
is that of Christian burial. 
MEN MEET 
at Boonville in April were read and 
approved. 
The by-laws committee, appointed 
at the Boonville meeting, brought in 
their report, consisting of constitution 
and by-laws, which were read, section 
at a time, amended and adopted as a 
whole. 
Papers were then read by A. E. 
Todt of Sts. Peter and Paul Cemetery, 
of St. Louis, on “Drainage,” and by 
E. L. Burch, of Riverview Cemetery, 
Jefferson City, “Starting an Endowed 
Cemetery.” A general discussion was 
then had upon various features of 
cemetery and ,park work, especially 
upon endowment. Members of the 
association then visited Elmwood 
Cemetery to gain further points of 
observation. 
Visiting members were extended 
every courtesy and enjoyed very much 
the luncheon given them by the Kan- 
sas City members at the Coates 
house. 
The meeting then adjourned to 
meet at Jefferson City some time in 
July, 1910. 
Tax on Bequest for Care of Lot 
The surrogate’s court of New York 
County says. In re Fay’s Estate, 116 
New York Supplement, 423, that this 
was an appeal by the executor from 
an order wdiich assessed a tax of $50 
upon a bequest to the Mt. Auburn 
Cemetery Association. The decedent 
directed his executor to pay to the 
Mt. Auburn Cemetery Association the 
sum of $1,000, “so that the interest 
of this sum will keep my lot in good 
condition forever.” The cemetery 
association is a Massachusetts cor- 
poration. The executor contended 
that the bequest W’as to be considered 
as part of the funeral expenses, and, 
therefore, not taxable. 
In matter of Vinot’s Estate ('Sur.) 
7 N. Y. Supp. 517, Surrogate Ransom 
held that a bequest of $1,000 to an 
association, the income of which was 
to be applied to the care and preserva- 
tion of the burial plot of the decedent, 
w'as not taxable. As this decision 
has not been overruled by a higher 
court, it might be considered as a con- 
trolling authority in this case. In 
view’, however, of the language of the 
court of appeals of New York in the 
Gould case, 156 N. Y. 423, and of the 
appellate division in the McAvoy 
case, 112 App. Div. 377, 98 N. Y'. 
Supp. 437, it would appear that the 
LAW IN COURT DECISIONS 
