Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Assn.

California Court of Appeal

Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Assn.

278 P.2d 945, 130 Cal. App. 2d 328, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1897

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 24, 1955

DocketCiv. 16141

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 278 P.2d 945 (Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Assn.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Assn., 278 P.2d 945, 130 Cal. App. 2d 328, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1897 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinions

NOURSE, P. J.

The plaintiff and appellant herein has appealed from an adverse judgment on the judgment roll alone. She is therefore bound by the findings of fact and if the judgment based on those findings is a proper judgment as a matter of law, no other issue is triable on this appeal.

These facts are: The defendant maintained a cemetery in which were burial plots, a crematorium, and three mausoleums, one of which was set aside for the exclusive use of members of the Caucasian race. The plaintiff demanded that her husband’s remains be deposited in this restricted mausoleum. There is no contention that the other two were not just as suitable and as properly maintained as the third. There is no evidence of any kind showing why the plaintiff rejected this offer.

[329]*329The only question of law involved here is whether section 51 of the Civil Code applies to this case. That section reads: “All citizens within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, restaurants, hotels, eating-houses, places where ice cream or soft drinks of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, barber shops, bath houses, theaters, skating rinks, public conveyances and all other places of public accommodation or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to all citizens.”

The settled rule of law is that the expression “all other places” means all other places of a like nature to those enumerated, i. e., “restaurants, hotels,” etc. In a similar case involving a like statute the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the expression “all other places of public accommodation and amusement” did not include cemeteries. (People v. Forest Home Cemetery Co., 258 Ill. 36 [101 N.E. 219, 220].) Directly in point is the recent ease of Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, - Iowa - [60 N.W.2d 110], where the same rule was applied to the refusal of the cemetery to accept for burial the remains of an Indian in a plot of land restricted to the use of members of the Caucasian race.

There is no merit in any of the arguments of appellant. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOURSE, P. J.

The plaintiff and appellant herein has appealed from an adverse judgment on the judgment roll alone. She is therefore bound by the findings of fact and if the judgment based on those findings is a proper judgment as a matter of law, no other issue is triable on this appeal.

These facts are: The defendant maintained a cemetery in which were burial plots, a crematorium, and three mausoleums, one of which was set aside for the exclusive use of members of the Caucasian race. The plaintiff demanded that her husband’s remains be deposited in this restricted mausoleum. There is no contention that the other two were not just as suitable and as properly maintained as the third. There is no evidence of any kind showing why the plaintiff rejected this offer.

[329]*329The only question of law involved here is whether section 51 of the Civil Code applies to this case. That section reads: “All citizens within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, restaurants, hotels, eating-houses, places where ice cream or soft drinks of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, barber shops, bath houses, theaters, skating rinks, public conveyances and all other places of public accommodation or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to all citizens.”

The settled rule of law is that the expression “all other places” means all other places of a like nature to those enumerated, i. e., “restaurants, hotels,” etc. In a similar case involving a like statute the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the expression “all other places of public accommodation and amusement” did not include cemeteries. (People v. Forest Home Cemetery Co., 258 Ill. 36 [101 N.E. 219, 220].) Directly in point is the recent ease of Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, - Iowa - [60 N.W.2d 110], where the same rule was applied to the refusal of the cemetery to accept for burial the remains of an Indian in a plot of land restricted to the use of members of the Caucasian race.

There is no merit in any of the arguments of appellant. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 P.2d 945, 130 Cal. App. 2d 328, 1955 Cal. App. LEXIS 1897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-mountain-view-cemetery-assn-calctapp-1955.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack