140 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
good order, and to the maintenance of 
its buildings, enclosures, roads, walks 
and grounds. 
On hundreds of lots in Laurel Hill 
Cemetery may be seen the neatly let- 
tered perpetual care sign while many 
other well kept lots attest the number 
of persons who provide through Spe- 
cial Yearly Care for the lots in which 
they are interested. Lots thus designated 
have been endowed. Not all endowed 
lots are designated, as the designator 
is not placed in a lot against the wish- 
es of the person creating the endow- 
ment. 
Each endowment and trust is treat- 
ed each year as an individual order 
as if received direct from the maker 
of the trusts, and surplus income is 
kept to the credit of the special trusts 
until required by the lot in whose fa- 
vor it is received. 
When it is desired to leave funds to 
the cemetery company for the care of 
lots, memorials and structures on lots 
it is strongly recommended that the 
Laurel Hill Cemetery Company be 
consulted as to the amount of in- 
come probably required to carry out 
the intentions of the person endowing 
the lot. 
Sod, ivy, rosebushes and other 
plants require constant attention to 
keep them in presentable condition, 
and at last, even with the best of care, 
die and must be replaced. The earth 
in graves settles into itself as time 
passes and the grave mound must be 
made over again and sodded. Mauso- 
leums, monuments and headstones 
cannot be erected and placed so firmly 
as to forever defy the natural forces 
which are continually at work to de- 
face and destroy them. It is believed 
that those who provide in Laurel Hill 
Cemetery a last resting place for 
themselves and kindred, will feel the 
necessity of protecting such a place 
and the memorials thereon against the 
destroying effects of time, either by 
endowing the lot in which they are 
interested, during their life time, or 
by a bequest in their will and a form 
of bequest for insertion in wills is sug- 
gested as follows: 
“I give and bequeath to the Laurel 
Hill Cemetery Company, a corpora- 
tion organized and existing under the 
laws of the State of Pennsylvania, the 
sum of dollars, (see 
note A) in trust nevertheless, to in- 
vest and keep the same invested in 
such securities as to said Laurel Hill 
Cemetery Company may seem best, 
and to apply the net income received 
therefrom to the care of Lot number 
in Section , in the 
grounds of said Laurel Hill Cemetery 
Company, situate in the City and 
County of Philadelphia, Pa., which lot 
is recorded in the Cemetery’s Books 
in the name of ” 
LEGAL DECISIONS ON CEMETERY BEQUESTS— II 
Provisions Authorizing an Immediate 
Expenditure. 
A testamentary provision directing 
the immediate expenditure of money 
for the purpose of erecting a monu- 
ment, or fencing or otherwise putting 
a burial place in repair, obviously is 
not open to the objection that it cre- 
ates a perpetuity, which invalidates 
provisions for perpetual maintenance; 
and since it is not for a charitable 
use, it is not obnoxious to the statute 
of mortmain. 
It has frequently been held that a 
testamentary provision by bequest or 
by direction to the executor for the 
erection of a tomb or monument is 
valid. Johnson v. Holifield (1885) 79 
Ala. 423, 58 Am. Rep. 596; Re Kop- 
pikus (1905) 1 Cal. App. 84, 81 Pac. 
732; Ford v. Ford (1891) 91 Ky. 572, 
16 S. W. 451; Detwiller v. Hartman 
(1883) 37 N. J. Eq. 347; Wood v. 
Vandenburgh (1837) 6 Paige, 277; 
Emans v. Hickman (1877) 12 Hun, 
425; Bainbridge’s Appeal (1881) 97 
Pa. 482; Mcllvain v. Hockaday (1904) 
36 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 81 S. W. 54. 
And see Masters v. Masters (1717) 
1 P. Wms. 423, in which a direction 
for the erection of a monument to 
testator’s mother was treated as good. 
“To hold otherwise,” said the court 
in Detwiller v. Hartman (1883) 37 N. 
J. Eq. 347, “would be to deny the 
right of the testator to dispose of his 
estate. It is conceded that a testator 
may make provision by his will for 
the erection of a memorial to himself 
at his grave, but his right to provide 
for one so expensive as that which this 
testator contemplated, and for which he 
has provided in the will under consid- 
eration, is denied. It is obvious that if 
the right to dispose of any part of his 
estate for the purpose exists, as it un- 
doubtedly does, this court cannot limit 
its exercise except as the necessities of 
the administration may require. The 
suggestion that a much less expensive and 
ostentatious memorial would be appro- 
priate than that for which the testator has 
seen fit to provide cannot enter into 
the consideration of the matter. The 
testator was the sole judge on that 
subject, and his judgment is not liable 
to be reviewed in any court. As this 
court manifestly cannot deal with the 
provision as a violation of good taste, 
neither can it deal with it on the 
ground that it is a wasteful expendi- 
ture. As to that, too, the testator was 
the sole judge.” 
It stands on the same footing as 
an expensive funeral. Mellick v. The 
Asylum (1821) Jacob, 180, 23 Revised 
Rep. 21. 
Such a provision is not for a chari- 
table use, within the meaning of the 
statute of mortmain. Ibid; Adnam v. 
Cole (1843) 6 Beav. 353; Trimmer v. 
Danby (1856) 25 L. J. Ch. N. S. 424, 
2 Jur. N. S. 367, 4 Week. Rep. 399. 
A bequest to executors in trust to 
buy a burial lot, and to provide a 
fence for the lot, is valid. Detwiller 
v. Hartman (1883) 37 N. J. Eq. 347. 
In Cool v. Higgins (1873) 23 N. J. 
Eq. 308, it was held that where a will 
directed the executors to erect and 
keep in repair an iron fence around a 
certain cemetery lot, they might main- 
tain ' a suit in equity against the de- 
visees of land charged by the will 
with all legacies and expenses direct- 
ed by it, for the expenses of erecting 
such fence. 
A bequest to an executor of money 
for the inclosure of a family grave- 
yard, and for the erection of a suit- 
able monument over the graves of 
testator’s parents, is valid. Fite v. 
Beasley (1883) 12 Lea, 328. 
A provision for the erection of a 
monument over the graves of the tes- 
tator and his wife is within the pro- 
tection of a statute declaring that a 
devise for “any charitable or humane 
purpose” shall be valid. Ford v. Ford 
(1891) 91 Ky. 572, 16 S. W. 451. 
A bequest for the erection of monu- 
ments to the memory of certain dis- 
tinguished men is valid; but a be- 
quest “for assisting to raise monu- 
ments to the memory of all other 
officers and soldiers from the state of 
Alabama who distinguished them- 
selves, or those who have died from 
wounds or were killed in defense of 
their country in the present war be- 
tween the United States and the Con- 
federate State,” is invalid on account 
of the impossibility of its perform- 
ance. Gilmer v. Gilmer (1868) 42 
Ala. 9. 
But in M’Caig v. Glasgow Uni- 
versity (1907) S. C. 231 (as digested 
in l Mews, Eng. Case Law Dig. Supp. 
p. 231), where a testator directed the 
income of his heritable estate to be 
