178 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
gateway and a superintendent’s residence. The total ex- 
penditure for improvements was about $10,000. 
St. Mary’s Catholic church of Sharpsburg, Pa., is to open 
a new cemetery of 78 acres adjoining the old one. 
An addition of about ten acres to Woodlawn Cemetery, 
Winona, Minn., is being graded, preparatory to improve- 
ment. * * The trustees of West Cemetery, Meriden, Conn., 
are making preparations to expend $5, 000 in improve- 
ments. * * Grove Cemetery, Seymour, Conn., has received a 
legacy of $10,000 from the late Bronson B. Tuttle. * * A new 
stone wall and fence are to be built at Union Green Cem- 
etery, Gallion, O. * * Highland Cemetery, near Cincinnati, 
Ohio, has added 16 acres of adjoining territory at a cost 
of $4,338.50. * * Six acres of territory have been purchased 
by the Pine Grove Cemetery Association, Ansonia, Conn. * * 
County Surveyor L. B. Neighbor has been employed to lay 
out an addition of 25 acres to Oakwood Cemetery, Dixon, 111 . 
NEW CEMETERY STRUCTURES. 
A movement is on foot to build a crematory at Mt. Feake 
Cemetery, Waltham, Mass. * * A new stone entrance gate 
is being built at Riverview Cemetery, Middletown, Conn. * * 
Austin Cemetery, Austin, Minn., has recently dedicated a 
new chapel and receiving vault. * * A new chapel and re- 
ceiving vault is under construction at Canajoharie Falls Cem- 
etery, Canajoharie, N. Y. The interior of the chapel will be 
finished in red sandstone, and the receiving vault will have 
20 catacombs. * * Plans by Vernon Redding have been 
adopted for a new entrance to the cemetery at Ashland, O. 
* * The Schiller Memorial Chapel, in St. Mary’s Cemetery, 
Rome, N. Y., has been completed and is to be dedicated this 
month. * * Elmwood Hill Cemetery, Troy, N. Y., has erected 
a new entrance gate and fence. * * Work is in progress on 
a new iron gateway for Spring Forest Cemetery, Bingham- 
ton, N. Y. A fund of $6,100 has been subscribed for the 
work. * * A new entrance to the cemetery at Thompson- 
ville, Conn., is being built by McGregory & Casman, of 
Springfield, Mass. 
Cemetery Legal Decisions. 
'Valid Mortgage and Foreclosure Sale. 
In Ross vs. Glenwood Cemetery Association, the third ap- 
pellate division of the supreme court of New York says 
(81 New York Supplement, 779) it thinks that the bond and 
mortgage, and a part of the transaction of conveyance by 
valid and enforceable, and that the foreclosure sale divested 
the association of its title and interest in the portion of the 
Smith tract so sold. The mortgage was a purchase money 
mortgage, and a part of the transaction of conveyance by 
Smith to the association of a tract of 12.20 acres. The deed 
and mortgage constituted an indivisible act, and were to be 
regarded as one instrument, and construed as a conveyance, 
upon condition of payment expressed in the mortgage. 
The sale under the foreclosure judgment of the unoccupied 
portion of the Smith tract was not prohibited by chapter 419, 
p. 829, Laws 1871. No question arose in this case as to the 
right to sell, under a foreclosure judgment, lands upon which 
interments had been made, or which had been sold by the 
cemetery association, for burial purposes, but upon which 
interments had not yet been made, as all such portions of the 
mortgaged lands were expressly excepted from sale by the 
decree of foreclosure and sale. 
Widow Not Entitled to Removal of Remains. 
A widow, who buried the remains of her deceased husband 
in a burial plot belonging to his sister, with the consent of 
the latter, and who prepared the grave for the reception of 
her own remains after death, with like consent, knowing that 
the said lot was so occupied that no consent would be given 
for other interments therein, the court of chancery of New 
Jersey holds (Smith vs. Shepherd, 54 Atlantic Reporter, 806), 
was not entitled to require the owner of the plot to permit her 
to remove the remains merely because his children by a for- 
mer wife (also buried therein) and his children by her could 
not be buried therein. 
The fact that the sister, the owner of the plot, refused to 
consent to the removal of her brother’s remains from said 
plot for the purpose of burying the same in a plot belonging 
to the widow, and also refused to consent to the removal of 
the remains of the first wife of the deceased for the purpose 
of burying the same in the plot of the second wife, now his 
widow, the court holds, raised no equity justifying a decree 
requiring her to give such consent in either case. 
The right of the widow, in respect to access or care or 
adornment of the grave of her deceased hubsand, was not 
involved in or decided in the present case, and the dismissal 
of the bill of complaint was without prejudice to her seeking 
relief thereafter, if her rights in those respects, if any, should 
be interfered with. 
* * * 
Rights of Lot Owner and Family. 
The sale of lots in a public cemetery, the supreme court of 
Illinois holds (McWhirter vs. Newell, 66 Northeastern Re- 
porter, 345), does not pass to the grantees the title in fee to 
such lots, but thereby assures to the grantee a license or ease- 
ment therein for burial purposes, so long as the cemetery 
shall be used for cemetery purposes. This license or easement 
becomes the property of the family of the original grantee of 
the lot upon his or her decease. The fee of the lots in such 
case remains in the trustees of the cemetery, or their grantees, 
in trust for the use and benefit of the association and of the 
lot owners. 
Where a person’s name is noted in the record books in the 
proper column for that purpose as the owner of a lot, the im- 
plication is that, being owner, he has paid for it. Moreover, 
where the license or easement has rested in a person and 
his heirs at law for nearly 40 years, unquestioned and undis- 
puted by the trustees of the cemetery, the ownership of his 
family in the lot, the court holds, should not be disturbed, 
even though the record books of the cemetery do not state 
upon their face that he paid for the lot. 
The trustees of a public cemetery have no authority, after 
having once set aside and devoted a certain lot to a certain 
person or his family, to subsequently exercise any acts of con- 
trol over the lot in the way of applying it, or devoting it, or 
any portion of it, to the use of any other person, until the 
original grantee or owner of the license or easement in the 
lot, or his descendants and family, have abandoned the lot, 
either by removing from the vicinity of the cemetery, or by 
the extinguishment of the family as a component part of the 
community, or in some other way. 
Neither the widow nor children of a deceased lot owner 
knowing of the burial of another in the lot until two years 
thereafter, when complaint was made to the trustees, and for 
years afterwards applications were made to the widow of the 
second buried party to remove his remains from the lot, there 
was no abandonment of the lot by the family of the original 
owner, and no acquiescence in the use of the lot by the second 
widow. 
