PARK AND CEMETERY. 
251 
Church v. Gifford (1888) 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 
92. 
But in Chapman v. Newell (1910) 
— Iowa — , 125 N. W. 321, the court 
intimates its disapproval of the cases 
which hold that a trust for the main- 
tenance of the donor’s own burial 
place is invalid, saying that the rule 
is not universally accepted. 
In Doe ex dem. Thompson v. Pitch- 
er (1815) 3 Maula & S. 410, 2 Marsh. 
61, 6 Taunt. 359, a grant by deed of 
lands to trustees of a religious so- 
ciety, to the use of one of them, his 
heirs and assigns, upon condition that 
he, his heirs and assigns, should from 
time to time repair a vault and tomb 
standing upon part of the lands, and 
if need be rebuild it, and permit the 
same to be used as a family vault for 
the grantor and any of her family, 
was held, so far as it concerned the 
grantor’s own interment, not to be 
for a charitable use, within the mean- 
ing of the statute of mortmain, pro- 
hibiting the granting of lands to char- 
itable uses unless the deed be with- 
out any consideration or reservation 
for the benefit of the grantor or any 
person claiming under him. 
As Affected by Capacity of Donee. 
In Gravenor v. Hallum (1767) 2 
Ambl. 643, where a testator created 
a charge upon his lands of a certain 
sum to the church wardens of two 
different parishes forever, to be laid 
out in repairing his family vaults in 
each of those parishes, it was held 
that the bequests, being given to 
church wardens which were not a 
corporation to take, were therefore 
void at law; and being so, a court of 
equity would not appoint new trus- 
tees to set them up. 
In Holifield v. Robinson (1885) 79 
Ala. 419, it was held unnecessary to 
decide whether a bequest to officers 
of a county in trust to appropriate 
the income to the repair and preser- 
vation of the private burial place of 
the testatrix and her family was void 
as creating a perpetuity not in its 
nature charitable, upon the ground 
that neither the county nor its of- 
ficers had power to accept the trust, 
it being for the management of a 
fund purely for a private benefit. 
A provision in the act incorporat- 
ing a village that the trustees shall 
have the custody of public cemeteries, 
may purchase and keep a hearse and 
other conveniences for the burial of 
the dead, may appoint a superintend- 
ent, may require the payment of such 
sums for the privileges of burial as 
they may see fit, and may improve 
the grounds and purchase and keep 
in repair the same, including fences, 
walks, and public vault, hearse and 
other articles, and further authorizing 
the village to receive and hold lega- 
cies made for the purpose of carry- 
ing out any of the foregoing provis- 
ions, the proceeds of such legacies to 
become part of a general trust fund, 
does not empower the village to take 
a legacy in trust for the maintenance 
of a private lot. Re Waldron (1907) 
57 Misc. 275, 109 N. Y. Supp. 681. 
In Sheldon v. Stockbridge (1894) 
67 Vt. 299, 31 Atl. 414, where a tes- 
tator gave a town a sum of money, 
directing that the interest be ex- 
pended annually, one half in cultivat- 
ing flowers on his burial lot in the 
cemetery, improving and beautifying 
it, and the other half in fencing, im- 
proving, and beautifying the ceme- 
tery, such bequest being conditioned 
upon the town’s agreement “to keep 
good this amount through all com- 
ing time,” it was contended that the 
bequest was void as being subject 
to a condition precedent which could 
not be performed; but it was held 
that as a town has by law power to 
raise money to buy and keep burial 
grounds in repair and fence them, it 
might bind itself by vote to the per- 
formance of the condition. 
( To be continued) 
MAUSOLEUM CONSTRUCTION AND ENDOWMENT 
Editor Park and Cemetery : In your recent editorial 
on the Cemetery Superintendents’ Convention, referring 
to the discussion on mausoleums: 
“The frequency and costliness of repairs even with 
the higher and expensive type It is needless 
to speak of the low priced buildings on which, in most 
cases the construction and material employed, far to often 
make early failure certain.” 
The inference here is that because so many expensive 
buildings have not been durably constructed, the less ex- 
pensive buildings would necessarily be more susceptible 
to deterioration. On the face of it, this seems good logic, 
but it is the old story of not having all the facts. 
My experience has shown me that these expensive mau- 
soleums, which have required expensive repairs have been 
built from architects’ plans. Mausoleum designing by 
architects is a mere incident in their experience. They 
are accustomed to building buildings having constant per- 
sonal attention by janitors or others, and these buildings 
are heated in cold weather. 
So when they attack the mausoleum problem, they do 
not construct them on the lines requiring the minimum 
of attention to enable them to withstand the effects of 
the elements. 
The walls and foundations of Greek Temples, though 
built of comparatively inferior material as to durability, 
are standing today, except, first as to damage done delib- 
erately by man, and second, as to their roofs. The build- 
ings were too large to make the roofs in large pieces, and 
they built them of small pieces. 
These expensive mausoleums to which the superintend- 
ent doubtless refers, as requiring rebuilding, have the same 
defect, viz.: the pieces in the roof are so jointed that it 
is a weak part of the structure, just as the roofs of the 
Greek temples were their weakest spot. 
Buildings built on the lines of such mausoleums as the 
Gary in Wheaton, 111.; Tenny at Methuen, Mass.; Ziegler 
at Woodlawn, New York, and the Brand at Chicago, will 
stand because they are built of good granite and the roofs 
are so constructed that instead of being the weaker part 
of the building, they are the strongest part of the building, 
binding the walls together instead of being merely supported 
by the walls. Inexpensive vaults are built on the identical 
durable construction that these vaults are built on, so 
that it does not follow at all, because certain very ex- 
pensive mausoleums have required a great deal of repairs, 
that less expensive mausoleums will be less durable. It 
is the construction and material which counts, regardless 
whether it is a low priced or an expensive mausoleum. 
Good architects naturally design beautiful designs archi- 
tecturally, and many times their desire for variety and for 
an elaborate design leads them to put up buildings which 
have architectural merit only and not durable structural 
merit. 
The desire not to be buried in the ground is inborn, 
even Indians frequently placed their dead in tree tops, 
and that feeling will always be with us. 
Therefore, instead of combating it generally, the ceme- 
teries and dealers should co-operate in having them built 
rightly. 
