PARK AND CEMETERY, 
59 
oo and from labor on lots $7,244 98, or a total of $26,044.98. 
The general expenditures were $23,089.99. The sale of lots 
amounted to $4,730. The result of the depressed times last year 
was felt in the lot sales, the demand being for smaller lots and 
single graves. The number of lots sold was 128, and the total 
number of interments in the three cemeteries was 599. The 
number of lots under perpetual care is 448 and the fund amounts 
to $41,484 93, which is rapidly increasing. Foundations were 
constructed for 19 monuments and 23: headstones. The board is 
in close sympathy with the landscape plan of cemetery improve- 
ment and is rapi lly effecting what changes are necessary to bring 
all the cemeteries up to the standard. 
* x * 
A writer in the Amherst, Mass., Record, recently called 
attention to the unsatisfactory conditions of the three public 
cemeteries of that town, the funds for the care of which are 
largely furnished by the town, and in which very few lots are 
sold and that at a ridiculously low price. For the past few years 
not over $20 or $25 per year has been received for sales in either 
of the cemeteries. The West, or old cemetery, has no lots for 
sale, the North, a good number and the South a few. Records 
have been carelessly kept, and many lots have been taken with- 
out paying for them. No funds have been set apart for repairs 
and consequently the town perfunctorily performs its work. The 
correspondent concludes: ‘‘The question should be soon decided 
by the town, — How shall our cemeteries be kept in repair in the 
future? Wildwood cemetery association was incorporated in 
1887; one-half of the proceeds of each lot sold is funded for per- 
petual care, this fund in ten years has reached $3,000. For the 
old cemetery after 150 years there is only $500, given by five 
persons for care of their lots; North Amherst $100: South Am- 
herst $200. The interest of $500 would give perpetual care for 
the old cemetery and half that amount each of the others. Why 
not try for perpetual care of all these cemeteries? Why should 
not the town move on this question at once, or at least appoint 
a committee? This fund if raised should be for perpetual care 
of the whole cemetery and not for individual lots, with nothing 
for walks on lots uncared for. Decay comes in neglected spots.” 
This is an important question that should now be considered and 
settled by all towns owning public burial grounds. There are 
a great number of places similarly situated, and which require 
a complete change in methods to bring them up to modern con- 
ditions. 
LEGAL. 
LIMIT TO CEMETERY EXEMPTIONS. 
Laws exempting property from taxation will be strictly con- 
strued. All reasonable intendments will be indulged in favor of 
the state, and, unless it clearly appears that the property is ex- 
empt, it must, like other property, be held subject to taxation. 
These are general principles laid down by the supreme court of 
Illinois, in the late case of the Bloomington Cemetery Associa- 
tion against People. The question in this case was whether a 
certain lot belonging to the cemetery association was subject to 
taxation. The lot was purchased to connect the cemetery, 
which it adjoined, with a public street, was inclosed with the 
cemetery grounds, and was used at first, in part, as an entrance, 
but later another street was laid out, and the association built a 
dwelling house and dug a well on this lot. The custodian em- 
ployed by the association lived in this house part ol the time, 
keeping house, and part of the time boarding with a family liv- 
ing there, under arrangements made with him. One room was 
reserved and used as an offiee by the association, and the well 
was used to provide water for the cemetery grounds. But this 
lot had not been, nor was it designed to be, platted or used for 
burial puposes. The association was chartered solely to lay out, 
inclos;, and ornament a plat or piece of ground to be used as a 
burial place, with the special exemption that “said piece of 
ground so held and platted shall be exempt from taxation and 
executi m.” Under the rules above stated, and with this special 
exemption in favir of the association, the supreme court holds 
that the lot in question was subject to taxation, and was not ex- 
empt. It says that it would require a more liberal construction 
than is applied to the statutes exempting property from taxation 
to bring within the foregoing exemption clause a separate ad- 
joining lot, purchased, held, and used, not for burial purposes, 
but for an office and dwelling of the custodian of the grounds, 
and for a supply of water. Nor does the court consider it ex- 
empted by the provision of the state constitution that such prop- 
erty as may be used exclusively for cemetery puposes may be 
exempted from taxation by general law and by the general law 
of Illinois that all lands used exclusively as grave-yards or 
grounds for burying the dead" shall be exempt. 
* * * 
GUARANTOR REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR MONUMENT. 
Among the various matters of difference set forth by the 
complainant, the widow of William Cate, deceased, in the re- 
cent case of Cate against Cate, were some between her and her 
step-son, J. R. Cate, or.e of which latter differences took the 
form of an assignment of error in the allowance by the chancel- 
lor of a claim in favor of J. R. Cate for amount paid for monu- 
ment placed on family lot. The widow insisted that the monu- 
ment was bought by J. R. and Gus Cate, and that this was their 
debt. The proof showed clearly that, while J. R. and Gus Cate 
gave directly to the dealer the order for the monument, and 
agreed to see the bill paid, the monument was ordered and con- 
tracted for by J. R. and Gus Cate at the express instance and 
direction of their father, the decedent, William Cate, who noti- 
fied and approved the contract after it was made, and who was 
to pay the bill. J. R. Cate, as a security or guarantor of the 
debt, paid it. Under these circumstances, the court of chancery 
appeals of Tennessee holds that it was a just claim against the 
estate, and was properly allowed by the chancellor. 
* * ■» 
STATED CAUSE OF ACTION. 
The court of appeals of Kentucky has reversed the judgment 
of the circuit court, Whitley county, in the case of Finley against 
Hill. Here it was alleged that the plaintiff and other persons 
named had subscribed, in 1886, to the Woodland Cemetery Com- 
pany, agreeing to organize a joint-stock company to purchase 
land and maintain a cemetery on a certain site, and take stock 
therein to the amounts set opposite their respective names. It 
was further alleged that the company was duly incorporated ; 
officers elected; and that the company was authorized to purchase 
a site for the cemetery, issue and sell stock. And it was charged 
that, by the articles of incorporation, it was the duty of the offi- 
cers of the corporation to issue stock to all subscribers who had 
paid for same, and to convey the lots purchased in the cemetery, 
which they had not done; that the officers had not secured title 
to the land, though paid for, and that the directors had, without 
consulting the stockholders, ordered the president to sell off a 
strip of land 160 feet wide including the graves of several per- 
sons. And it was further charged that the directors had en- 
tered an order forbidding the sale of any other lots in said ceme- 
tery for burial purposes, and declared the ground unfit for burial 
purposes, and directed the sale above stated and the purchase of 
other ground for a cemetery. Specific and general relief was 
asked. The lower court dismissed the petition. But the court 
of appeals holds that it stated a cause of action against the 
Woodland Cemetery Company, and that the vendor of the land 
to the company was a necessary party in an action to compel 
the officers to cause a deed to the company to be made. 
