192 
PARK AND CEMETERY, 
One prominent member of the Association of Superintend- 
ents justly remarked after the discussion on the subject, that 
we superintendents are inclined to be cranks on certain sub- 
jects and in our enthusiasm ride our hobby to the extreme. 
Some were inclined to ignore the rights of lot owners. Another 
member said lot owners have only the rights of burial and their 
deeds only conveyed that right. Consult'ng an eminent judge 
on that point the writer was informed that it would be a difiS- 
cult matter to convince a jury to that effect, no matter how 
legal; custom would over-ride all law, and cemetery officials 
would find that lot owners have certain rights given by custom. 
■A visit to our most celebrated museums and larger art in- 
stitutions’ will show that the most artistic creations handed 
down to us are stone memorials of rulers in bygone da3S. 
Reader, if j’ou can spare the time look through 3'our files of 
P.vRK AND Cemetery and you will find that all the views 
given of (Iraceland show a tomb or monument in the b.ack- 
ground. Will you attempt to .sa3' that these graceful pieces of 
architecture marr the beauty of the pictures. You need not go 
back an3’ farther than the last June issue, if you are so veT3' 
busy. The same number gives an illustration of the Fleisch- 
man tomb in Spring Grove. Take out the tomb from that pic- 
ture and it would leave a meaningless mass of wood, water and 
lawn, beautiful to the eye and wry ])ark-like. But with the 
tomb it forms a grand picture of a “silerit witne.'^.s.” The beau- 
ty of the landscape is inlensiried by su ;h a piece of architec- 
tui'e. 
In all trailes or profe.ssions there are irresponsible numbers 
glib of tongue and full of assurance. The monument bii.siness 
is certainly no exception. S les are all they aim at and they' 
are willing to sell any kind of work, artistic or otherwise. 
Now these are the men that cemetery superintendents should 
combat. Some few years ago Graceland issued a rule forbid- 
ding the duplication of monuments. This rule has been exten- 
sively copied in other places and has tended greatly to improve 
the general ajipearance of certain cemeteric.s. The better class 
of monumental firms employ artists to design memorials and 
a-e t reeling nU're artistic work and these the cemetery men 
should encourage. Dissuade your lot owner.s from copying. 
Will anv person who had the pleasure of visiting Lake 
View Cleveland, maintain that the Rockefeller shaft with its 
magnificent proportions and graceful outlines in any way de- 
tracts from the harmonious effect of the landscape. The same 
can be said of others. But upon the other hand there are 
monumental stones which do not harmonize with the surround- 
ings in Take View which would be better hidden from view. 
t pon the subject of headstones or grave markers, cemetery 
men are pretty well agreed, flush with the surface is all that is 
necessary. Still a woid can be .said in favor of those which 
are raised a little above the surface, when uniformity can be 
had. But there the difficulty comes. Nearly every lot owner 
desires a different style of marker. Take a look over any of 
our national cemeteries with their thousands of markers in 
rows or circles. There they present a harmonious effect by 
their uniformitv. No one will say' that the style of marker 
issued by the national government to indicate the graves of its 
dead soldiers is of artistic design. As single specimens when 
])laced on graves they are hideous. But as a whole their effect 
is harmonious though prim and possibly stiff in appearance 
yet harmonious. This can be a lesson to us to try and have 
our monuments in harmony with the surroundings. 
.\ great deal more can be written on thi^ subject and it is 
to be hoped that some of the members of the association who 
congratulated the writer on the stand he took, after the meet- 
ing, will ventilate their views. It is a subject of interest to the 
public as well as to the cemeteries. At Cleveland .some of the 
vounger blood displayed ability to prepare papers. It is aston- 
ishing how many suffer from “stage fright” at our annual 
meeting.s, yet privately, or when two or three are gathered to- 
gether, ably express their views. P.ark and CEMETERY has 
frequently invited discussion in its columns. Now, let us hear 
some of the pros and cons concerning monuments in cemeterie'^. 
Belt, tt Lawson. 
LEGAL. 
RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DISINTERRING OF BODIES AND DE- 
F.VCEMENT OF GRAVESTONES. 
As a general rule, one who purchases and has conveyed to 
him a lot in a public cemetery does not acquire the fee or full 
title to the soT, but only the easement or license of burial 
therein. But so long as he is in the rightful possession of the 
lot, or holds title to the usufructuary interest therein, or right 
of use thereof, he may maintain an action against any one who 
wrongfully trespasses upon it. 
The rule is well established that one entitled to maintain 
the action may recover damages from any person who wrong- 
ullv trespa-ses upon, desecrates or invades the burial lot of 
another. 
More specifically doe the supreme court of Georgia hold, 
that one who is the owner of the easement or license of burial 
in a cemetery' lot, orwhoisrightfully in possession of the same, is 
entitled to recover damages from any one who wrongfully' 
enters upon such lot and disinters the remains of persons 
buried therein. 
And the court holds that in a suit for damages for wrong- 
fully disinterring a dead body, if the injury has been wanton 
and malicious, or is the result of gross negligence or a reckless 
disregard of the rights of others, equivalent to an intentional 
vijlalion of hem, e.xemplary' damages may be awarded, in 
e.stimaiing which the injury to the natural feelings of the 
plaintiff may be taken into consideration. 
In a recent case the plaintiffs were not only in possession of 
the lot at the time of the alleged trespass by the defendant, but, 
as the heirs at law of Jacob Jacobu.c, th court says that they 
had a compTte title to the easement of burial therein by pre- 
,>:cription or right acquired by long adverse posse.ssion, for the 
grave containing the :e;naiiis of their brother and .sister had 
b en upon the lot, undisturbed, for nea:ly forty years. The 
presence of these graves, marked with headstones, upon the 
lot, it holds rendered the possession which commenced in 
Jacob Jacobus when he buried the first body upon it actual, 
adverse and notorious, and it was continued until dhturbed bv 
the defendant, in 1895. Having once been established, the 
possession, unless voluntarily relinquished, continued as long 
as the graves were marked and distinguishable as such and the 
cemetery' continued to be ti.sed. 
Furthermore, the court holds that, irrespective of the 
plaintiffs’ ti le to the easement, or their po.s.se.'sion of the lot, 
the petition stated a good cause of action for damages for the 
removal of the gravestones. The reason given is that if a 
gravestone or monument, which has been erected upon a ceme- 
tery lot, is defaced or removed during the lifetime of the person 
who erected it, he may, at common law, recover damages from 
the one who inflicted the injury; but, if the injury is inflicted 
after his death, the heirs at law of the person to whose memory 
the gravestone or monument was erected are entitled to main- 
tain the action. This is clear, the court adds, when it is 
con.sidered that a monument or gravestone which designated 
the grave of a particular person was considered by the common 
law in the nature of a family heirloom; and for this rea.son the 
common law, after the death of the person who erected it gave 
to the heirs at law of the person iu whose memory the sto' e 
was set up the right to maintain an action against anyone who 
injured or removed it. 
