212 
PARK AND CEMETERY. 
whatever revenues are derived from it are 
for the use of the church, and may be ap- 
propriated to any purpose which to the 
church may seem fitting, it is not embraced 
within the Pennsylvania statute which ex- 
empts burial grounds from taxation when 
not used or held for private or corpo- 
rate profit. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 
Brojvn’s Heirs vs. Pittsburgh, 16 Atlantic 
Reporter, 43.) 
In an Illinois case it appeared that a 
cemetery company owned a tract of land 
separated from the cemetery by a public 
highway, but no burials were made in it. 
The only use this tract had been put to 
was for maintenance of a stable, homes of 
employees, and as a source of mold and 
sand used in the cemetery. Under these 
facts, it was decided that the tract was 
not “used for cemetery purposes” in the 
sense that it was exempt from taxation. 
(People vs. Graceland Cemetery Co., 86 
Illinois Supreme Court Reports, 336.) 
The mere fact that a cemetery associa- 
tion is in receipt of small revenue from 
temporary use of surplus lands held for 
prospective use for burial purposes will not 
deprive the association of the benefit of 
tax exemption, declared the New York 
Court of Appeals in the case of People vs. 
Stillwell, 83 Northeastern Reporter, 56. 
The court said: “Of course, it is not nec- 
essary that the cemetery should be filled 
with graves in order to be entitled to the 
exemption.” 
The Illinois Constitution and the laws of 
the state authorize exemption from taxa- 
tion in favor of all lands used for burying 
the dead. But the Supreme Court decided, 
in the case of Bloomington Cemetery As- 
sociation vs. People, 48 Northeastern Re- 
porter, 905, that this provision did not en- 
title the association to exemption as to a 
separate lot not used for burial purposes, 
and merely used as an entrance to the 
cemetery and partly occupied by the su- 
perintendent’s residence. 
A portion of a tract of land purchased 
by a cemetery association is e.xempt from 
taxation when its acquisiton is necessary 
for use in the near future as a burial place 
for the dead, and the association intends to 
plat the same as a part of its cemetery, 
and place it upon the market for sale, as 
soon as the entire tract can be acquired 
under condemnation proceedings pending. 
Conducting a greenhouse thereon for the 
purpose of growing flowers and plants to 
be used in beautifying the grounds is not 
a use of such tract for other than ceme- 
tery purposes, so as to render the tract 
taxable, notwithstanding the fact that a 
small surplus of the stock of the green- 
house has been sold for the benefit of the 
association. (Minnesota Supreme Court, 
State vs. Lakewood Cemetery Association, 
101 Northwestern Reporter, 161.) 
This decision is, however, somewhat in 
conflict with the decision of the Illinois 
Supreme Court in the case of Rosehill 
Cemetery Association vs. Kern, 35 North- 
eastern Reporter, 240, to the effect that 
land owned by a cemetery company, and 
platted by it for future use for burial pur- 
poses, but only used for the present for 
raising sod and flowers for use in the 
cemetery, and for draining the cemetery 
and feeding horses used in the cemetery, 
^was not exempt. 
Although land held by a cemetery com- 
pany or 'association is exempt from taxa- 
tion, within the rules, stated above, there is 
no exemption of personal property, in the 
absence of express statutory provision. So it 
has been decided by the Missouri Supreme 
Court that the proceeds of lot sales and 
chattel property held by an association was 
subject to taxation. Similar decisions have 
been announced by the highest courts of 
New Jersey and Kentucky. 
A. L. H. Street. 
Right to Remove Old Hedge. 
Legal Editor, Park and Cemetery : Do 
the words, “Subject to the rules and regu- 
lations,” in certificates to cemetery lot 
owners, refer only to rules and regulations 
in force at the time sale is made or to all 
subsequently passed? The case in point 
is this : Suppose the cemetery officials 
wish to remove an evergreen hedge which 
was set out when there was no rule against 
it, and the Board of Managers vote that 
all hedges shall be removed, has the lot 
owner any redress at law if the rule is en- 
forced? This, irrespective of the fact that 
hedges usually encroach on the adjoining 
paths and lots. My contention is that we 
have the right to remove the hedge or en- 
force any other new rule and regulation 
which is reasonable. 
An examination of the court decisions 
affecting the above query shows that such 
a rule as that mentioned by our corre- 
spondent is reasonable and enforceable, 
and the law editor of Park and Cemetery 
approves the opinion above expressed. 
In the absence of some express provision 
in a lot holder’s certificate clearly limiting 
the association’s right to enforce rules to 
those in existence at the time of the issu- 
ance of the certificate, the words, “Subject 
to the rules and regulations of the asso- 
ciation,” or similar phraseology, is to be 
interpreted as covering future rules, as 
well as those already in force. , Otherwise,' 
the power of an association to provide 
general plans of improvement in the inter- 
est of the cemetery at large would be un- 
reasonably curtailed, and a certain rule 
could be enforced against one lot holder 
because he acquired his lot before the rule 
was adopted, while there would be no 
power of control over the owner of a 
neighboring lot, merely because he bought 
after the adoption of the regulation. 
Since the above quoted query comes 
from Connecticut, the decision of the Su- 
preme Court of Errors of that state, hand- 
ed down in the case of State vs. Scoville, 
61 Atlantic Reporter, 63, will prove of pe- 
culiar decisive value. There the court 
said : 
“Cenerally, one receiving from a ceme- 
tery association a deed of a burial lot does 
not thereby take title to the soil itself. 
The rights of burial are so far public that 
the private interests so acquired to a lim- 
ited use of particular lots for purposes of 
interment are subject to the reasonable 
police regulations of the association having 
charge of the same.” 
The same idea was expressed by another 
court in the case of Cedar Hill Cemetery 
Co. vs. Lees, 22 Pennsylvania Superior 
Court Reports, 405, when it was said that 
since a cemetery must be maintained ac- 
cording to a fixed scheme as to improve- 
« ment of the real estate, enclosure of lots, 
the character of shrubbery to be planted, 
and the ornamentation in general, it is of 
the first importance that “the association 
should assume and retain absolute con- 
trol” on those subjects. 
“It is difficult to see how the rights of 
individual lot owners in respect to those 
things which are or may become objection- 
able to adjacent lots can be properly con- 
served without some such general and ex- 
clusive control of the ornamentation of all 
lots as is provided for in the by-laws to 
which exception is taken.” This language 
used in the decision in the last cited case 
is apt in determining the right of an asso- 
ciation to adopt such a rule as is men- 
tioned by our correspondent. In other 
words, the interest of a lot holder is not 
broad enough to give him a right to insist 
on the maintenance of a hedge which en- 
croaches upon adjoining paths or lots, nor 
even broad enough to entitle him to insist 
on being permitted to maintain such an 
enclosure when in the judgment of the cem- 
etery authorities, exercised in good faith, 
removal of the hedge is necessary to fur- 
ther a uniform scheme of improvement of 
the grounds at large. 
But the law is equally clear that all such 
rules must be of uniform operation on all 
lot holders. There is abundant judicial 
authority for saying that a rule which 
would require removal of hedge around 
one lot and permit it to remain around 
another could not be enforced. The Illi- 
nois Supreme Court has said : “A rule 
which would confer a right on one lot 
owner in regard to the improvement of 
his property and deny the same right to 
another lot owner, the managers of the 
cemetery have no power to make or en- 
force.” A. L. H. Street. 
Residence of Cemetery Superintendent. 
As affecting the place where the superin- 
tendent of a cemetery was entitled to vote. 
