PARK AND CEMETERY, 
71 
10. Would it be profitable to invite comment in Park and 
Cemetery on the advisability of permitting electric cars to en- 
ter cemeteries of large area, of course, under restrictions’ as to 
becoming decorum? Are there any such instances already in 
American cemeteries, and what is the experience therewith? 
' John C. Gordon , Supt. Beech wood Cemetery. 
In the space at command it would be impossible to do jus- 
tice to the queries of our correspondent, but the following will, to 
some extent, satisfy the questions. 
1. Comparatively few cemeteries have up to date made pro- 
hibitory rules, but the subject is now receiving vigorous 
attention among both cemetery officials and the clergy, 
and Sunday funerals are rapidly becoming less frequent. 
2. Some States have laws forbidding the exhuming of the 
remains of those dying from contagious diseases; others 
prescribe rules and directions to be followed, and it may 
generally be said that the health officers throughout the 
country exercise a paramount authority on the question, 
with penalties for infraction of orders. But cemetery 
officials have recognized the importance of care, and 
custom has established rules harmonizing with the de- 
mands of the local health authorities. 
3. No information is at hand of any cemetery prohibiting 
the entrance of equestrian visitors. The rules and regu- 
lations govern their ccHiduct. 
4. At the last convention of the Association of American 
Cemetery Superintendents, held at St. Louis, Mo., in 
September, the question of admitting bicycles to ceme- 
tery grounds was discussed and put to vote, resulting in 
a strong majority in favor of the wheel. 
5. The bicycle has been found a valuable aid to the superin- 
tendent and other officials in cemetery work, and is used 
to a considerable extent. 
6. The rules and regulations of all properly managed ceme- 
teries govern the question of injury by man or beasts 
and have generally been found to be effective where 
strictly enforced. Drivers and others against whom 
charges of injury are brought are, until satisfaction and 
restitution are arranged, forever prohibited from again 
entering the grounds, besides the penalties which com- 
mon law provides for such cases. 
7. This query touches a subject to which far too little atten- 
tion has been paid by cemetery organizations Many of 
the larger cemeteries have provided shelter houses, and 
to some extent seats, but Park and Cemetery has 
frequently suggested that more accommodations in this 
direction should be provided, and indeed improvements 
are advancing on this line. 
8. The answer to question 7 will apply to this Both in parks 
and cemeteries the authorities are behind the times in 
, such matters of public comfort. The necessity and ap- 
propriateness of such provisions are beyond question, 
and generally speaking it is surprising that so little at- 
tention has been paid to the subject. We are rapidly- 
progressing, however, and buildings of public comfort 
are becoming features of the architectural plans of our 
parks, just as shelter houses are being provided in our 
cemeteries. 
u. The gates of American cemeteries are closed at sundown. 
The reasons from the cemetery official’s standpoint are 
undoubtedly apparent to our correspondent. 
- to. The columns of Park and Cemetery are always open 
for the discussion of progressive ideas, but present indi- 
cations do not point to the advisability of admitting 
public car tracks on to cemetery grounds. In most of 
our large cities the street car companies have tracks ex- 
tending to the principal cemeteries, while many of them 
use special cars for funeral purposes. Arriving at the 
entrance gates the cemetery corporations provide suita- 
- ble transfer vehicles. Some of our larger cemeteries 
run horse vehicles at stated intervals covering the prin- 
cipal points of their grounds, charging a regular fare for 
the trip. — E ds. 
LEGAL. 
CEMETERY ORGANIZATION LEGALIZED. 
The Indiana statute authorizing the appropriation of real 
estate for cemetery purposes has been amended by act approved 
March 8, 1897, which adds to it that “It is provided that where 
any cemetery society has heretofore regularly caused its articles 
of association to be recorded in either the miscellaneous, mort- 
gage or deed records of its county such organization is hereby 
legalized.” 
* * * 
The following law. which explains itself, has been passed 
by the Massachusetts Legislature: 
“Section i. Executors or administrators may pay to ceme- 
tery corporations or to cities or towns having burial places 
therein a reasonable sum of money for the perpetual care 
of the lot in which the body of their testate or intestate is 
buried. The probate court shall determine, after notice 
to all parties in interest, to whom the same shall be paid 
and the amount thereof, and such sum shall be allowed in 
final accounts of such executors or administrators. 
“Sec. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. Ap- 
proved April 29, 1897.” 
CEMETERY LAND LAW. 
Several points of interest to cemetery associations have just 
been decided by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in 
the case of Packard v. Old Colony R. Co. Here it was con- 
tended that a deed to three persons named, and described as “a 
committee of and in behalf of Village Cemetery, a corporation,” 
of North Bridgewater, w-as ineffectual. On its face, the deed 
showed a clear intention that the estate granted should not be 
limited to the lives of those three persons, though it neither con- 
tained the words “in trust” nor the word “trustees,” the evident 
purpose being that the land granted should be used for burial 
purposes by the corporation called the Village Cemetery. Un- 
der these circumstances, the court holds that the deed must be 
construed as a deed in trust for that corporation, and, as the pur- 
poses of the trust required a legal estate in the t rustees for a .per- 
iod beyond their own lives, they would take the complete legal 
title, though no words of limitation to heirs were used. Then, it 
was contended that the deed failed, because the Village Ceme- 
tery was never legally organized as a corporation. But while the 
court thinks there was sufficient evidence of its legal organization, 
it makes the important declaration that there could be no doubt 
that the Village Cemetery was a corporation de facto , or what 
assumed to act as a corporation, and as the grantor in the deed 
acted on the assumption that it w r as a corporation, and so de- 
scribed it, and received money which probably came from its 
funds as the consideration of the deed, it was at least doubtful if 
it was then open to the grantor’s heirs to deny the due and legal 
organization of the Village Cemetery as a corporation. 
EXECUTOR ALONE LIABLE FOR MONUMENT. 
A contract for the erection of a monument for an estate pur- 
ported to bind the executor personally. The offer made in the 
first place was personal, and his acceptance was personal. The 
words “for the estate of California A. Davol,” following the 
words, “I agree to build for you,” the supreme judical court of 
Massachusetts declares, only identified the subject-matter of the 
contract. Durkin v. Langley, 46 N. E. Rep. 119. Besides, it 
says that the general rule of the common law is that an executor 
cannot bind himself in a representative capacity by a new ex- 
press contract He binds himself personally, if at all. Taking 
these considerations together, it holds that the contract in ques- 
tion only created a personal liability on the part of the executor, 
and that it should not be enforced ag'inst the estate. Nor does 
it consider that it is rendered otherwise by the Massachusetts 
statute which authorizes the probate court to allow a reasonable 
sum for a monument when the same has been expended by the 
executor or administrator. This statute, it insists, cannot be 
held by implication to authorize an express contract binding the 
estate further than in terms it authorizes an allowance to the 
executor. How far it does so under the particular circumstances 
the plaintiff must find out at his peril. In this case, it further 
holds, no allowance out of the general assets would be reason- 
able, because the testatrix gave a fund specially for the purpose 
which came to the hands of the executor. The suggestion is 
also made in this case, that it is doubtful whether a promise to 
pay for a suitable monument ever would be implied by law'. 
